
CIass,JrLB_l_l 

Book ^ ^— - 

Gopyri^litl^^. 



CQFOUGHT DEPOSm 



Ube xaniverstt^ of CbicaGO 



A HISTORY OF GREEK ECONOMIC 
THOUGHT 



A DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 

AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 

OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 

ALBERT AUGUSTUS TREVER 




THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 



W^'^'^ 

-X'1^ 



Copyright 1916 By 
The University of Chicago 



All Rights Reserved 



Published August 1916 



/ 



>CLA437374 



Composed and Printed By 

The University of Chicago Press 

Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 



AUG 25 1916 



PREFACE 

The need of a reinterpretation of Greek economic theory in the 
light of our modern humanitarian economy is presented in the 
introduction to this work. If this volume may, in some degree, 
meet such a need, by awakening the classicist to the existence of 
important phases of Greek thought with which he is too unfamiHar, 
and by reminding the economist of the many vital points of contact 
between Greek and modern economy, our labor will have been 
amply repaid. There are doubtless errors both in citations and 
in judgment which will not escape the critic's eye. We trust, 
however, that the work is, on the whole, a fair representation of 
the thought of the Greeks in this important field. In the course 
of our study, we have naturally been obhged to make constant 
reference to the actual economic environment of the Greeks, as 
a proper background for their theories. It is therefore our pur- 
pose to publish, at some future date, a general history of economic 
conditions in Greece, which may serve as a companion to this 
volume. 

We gladly take this opportunity to express our gratitude to 
Professor Paul Shorey, of the University of Chicago, for his sug- 
gestion of the subject of this work, as also for his many helpful 
criticisms and suggestions during the course of its preparation. 

Lawrence College, Appleton, Wis. 
November i, 1915 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER p^gg 

I. Introduction -j 

1. Previous works on Greek economic thought, and reasons for 
the present study. 

2. Scope, purpose, method. 

3. General characteristics of Greek economic thought. 

II. Economic Ideas before Plato, and Reasons for the Unde- 
veloped Character of Greek Economics 14 

III. Plato 22 

1. General standpoint. 

2. Theory of value. 

3. Wealth: theory; moral attitude. 

4. Production. 

a) Agriculture. 

b) Capital. 

c) Labor and industry: 

(i) Plato's attitude toward. 

(2) Division of labor. 

(3) Slavery. 

5. Money: theory; moral attitude; interest. 

6. Exchange: theory; criticism of Plato's negative attitude. 

7. Population. 

8. Distribution: theory; attitude toward laboring classes. 

9. Communistic and sociaHstic ideas. 

a) Reasons for such tendencies in Greek thought. 
h) Republics heiove Vhto: Hippodamas; Phaleas. 

c) Plato's Republic. 

d) Plato's Laws. 

IV. Xenophon 5, 

1. Double standpoint. 

2. Theory of value. 

3. Wealth: practical interest in. 

4. Production. 

a) Theory; positive interest. 

b) Agricidture. 

c) Capital. 

d) Labor and industry. 

(i) Positive interest in its development. 

(2) Division of labor. 

(3) Slavery. 

S 



6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

CHAPTER PAGE 

5. Money: theory; in favor of unlimited increase. 

6. Exchange: proposed means for its free development. 

7. Population. 

8. Distribution: attitude toward masses. 

9. Socialistic tendencies in the Revenues. 

V. The Orators — Demosthenes, Isocrates 77 

VI. Aristotle 81 

1. Attitude toward matters economic; domestic and public 
economy. 

2. Theory of value. 

3. Wealth: theory; negative attitude toward. 

4. Production: theory; negative standpoint. 

a) Agriculture. 

b) Capital: theory; negative interest. 

c) Labor and industry, 
(i) Negative attitude. 

(2) Division of labor. 

(3) Slavery. 

5. Money: origin; theory; interest; reasons for the negative 
attitude of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. 

6. Exchange: theory; tariff; criticism of " chrematistik." 

7. Population. 

8. Distribution: theory; attitude toward masses. 

9. Communism and socialism. 

a) Negative criticism of Plato's Republic and other systems. 

b) Positive theory. 

VII. Minor Philosophers, Contemporaries or Successors or 

Plato and Aristotle 125 

1. The Academy, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Grantor. 

2. Theophrastus. 

3. Economica; the pseudo-Aristotelian Economica. 

4. Cyrenaics: Aristippus; Bion. 

5. Epicureans. 

6. Cynics: Antisthenes; Diogenes; Crates. 

7. Pseudo-Platonic Eryxlas. 

8. Teles. 

9. Stoics: Zeno; Aristo; Cleanthes; Chrysippus; Plutarch. 

10. Communistic tendencies after Aristotle. 

VIII. General Conclusions on the Importance and Influence of 

Greek Economics 146 

Bibliography 151 

Index 157 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

For a complete list of scholars who have devoted more or less 
attention to the economic ideas of Greek thinkers, the reader is 
referred to the bibliography at the conclusion of this work. On 
the surface, the Ust appears to be reasonably extensive. It will be 
observed, however, that the majority of the works are not of recent 
date; that many of them deal largely with the practical phase of 
economics ; that most of the larger works on economic history treat 
Greek economic and social theory in a merely incidental manner, 
and that nearly all are written from the general standpoint of the 
economist rather than with the more detailed analysis of the classi- 
cist. The work of Souchon, the most extensive, careful, and satis- 
factory discussion of the subject, is no exception to this latter rule, 
and since his standpoint is too exclusively that of the older English 
economists, his criticism of the Greek theories is not always suffi- 
ciently sympathetic. The monumental volumes of Poehlmann 
have treated Greek social theories thoroughly, but the chief inter- 
est of the author is rather in the actual social conditions, and his 
work is marred by a constant overemphasis of the analogy between 
ancient and modern capitalism and socialistic agitation. More- 
over, there is no book in the English language, on Greek economic 
thought, that treats the subject in anything more than the cursory 
manner of Haney and Ingram.^ There is, thus, still a place for 
a work of this type in the English language, written from the 
standpoint of the classicist, but with a view also to the needs of 
twentieth-century students of economics. 

The present work aims to fulfil such a need. Its scope differs 
quite essentially from all other accounts of Greek theory pre- 
viously published, in that our purpose is not merely to consider 
the extent to which the Greek thinkers grasped the principles of 

' F. Wilhelm {Rhein. Mus., XVII, No. 2 [1915], 163, n. 2) says: "Eine Geschichte 
der theoretischen Behandlung der Oekonomik bei den Griechen ist noch zu schreiben." 
The present work was undertaken in the year 191 1, 

7 



8 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

the orthodox economy of Ricardo and Mill. We shall also endeavor 
to ascertain how far they, by the humanitarian and ethical tone 
of their thinking, anticipated the modern, post-Ruskin economy, 
which makes man, not property, the supreme goal, and recognizes 
the multiplicity of human interests and strivings that belie the 
old theory of the "economic man." Our verdict as to the impor- 
tance of the Greek contribution to economic thought is thus likely 
to be somewhat more favorable than that which is usually rendered. 

We purpose also to emphasize more than is often done the 
important fact that Greek theory is essentially a reflection of 
Greek economic conditions, and that a true interpretation of the 
thought depends upon a clear understanding of the economic his- 
tory of Greece. However, as we shall see, this by no means impUes 
that the anti-capitaUstic theories of the Socratics are evidence of 
an undeveloped state of commerce and industry in fifth- and 
fourth-century Athens. 

The method of presentation is primarily chronological. Thus 
the ideas of each thinker can be discussed in a more thorough and 
unitary manner, and more in relation to the contemporary eco- 
nomic conditions that gave rise to them. Moreover, despite some 
practical advantages of the topical method, it savors too much of 
an artificial attempt to force the Greek thinkers on the procrustean 
rack of the concepts of modern economy. 

The general characteristics of Greek economic thought have 
often been enumerated. They may be restated with advantage, 
at this point, together with some additions and needed criticisms. 

I. Simplicity. — The theory of economics as a separate science 
never developed in Greece. The consideration of economic prob- 
lems was incidental to the pursuit of politics and ethics. In so far 
as Greek thinkers treated such subjects, their theories reflect the 
comparative simplicity of their economic environment. Without 
prejudging the issue as to the actual extent of capitalism in ancient 
Athens, we need only to think away the vast international scope 
of our modern commercial problems, our giant manufacturing 
plants with their steam and electric power, our enormous wealth 
and its extreme concentration, the untold complexity of modern 
business and finance, the vast territorial expanse of modern nations, 



INTRODUCTION 9 

almost all our luxuries and commonplace comforts, to begin to 
appreciate something of this ancient simpHcity/ However, as 
a direct result of this limitation, the Greeks were led to deal with 
their problems more in terms of men than in terms of things, and 
thus their economic vision was sometimes clearer and truer than 
our own. Aristotle struck the keynote in Greek economic thought 
in stating that the primary interest of economy is human beings 
rather than inanimate property.^ 

2. Confusion of private and public economy. — ^As a result of this 
simpHcity, the terms olKOPoixla and oUovofxiKr) were, both in deri- 
vation and largely in usage, referred to household management 
rather than to public economy.^ Domestic and public economy 
were regularly defined as differing merely in extent.^ Aristotle, 
however, distinctly criticizes the confusion of the two.s More- 
over, there is no warrant for the frequent assertion that Greek 
thinkers never rose above the conception of domestic economy. 
Xenophon's treatise on the Revenues of Athens, and Aristotle's 
entire philosophy of the state are a sufhcient answer to such general- 
zations. The statement of Professor Barker that "political 
economy," to Aristotle, would be a "contradiction in terms," is 
extreme.^ There is also a certain important truth in the Greek 

'Cf. Zimmem, Greek Commonwealth', pp. 211 ff.; but the statement on p. 222 
is extreme: "where competition and unemployment are unknown terms, where hardly 
anyone is working precariously for money wages or salary." 

^ Cf. Roscher, Ansichten der VolkswirtschafP (1878), I, chap, i, p. 7; Ar. Pol. 
1259&18-21. 

Cf. Plato Rep. 498A; Xen. Econ., a treatise on household management; Ar. Pol. 
i. p. 3, on the divisions of oUovoixla; chap. 8, on whether finance {xrvij-'^tictikti) is 
a part of olKom/j.tKi^; pseudo-Ar. Economica; cf. infra, p. 63, nn. 5 and 6; p. 82, n. i; 
p. 128, for fuller discussion. 

"Xen. Mem. iii. 4. 6 fif., especially 12; Econ. xx; Plato Pol. 259 B-C; cf., on this 
passage, Espinas, Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII (1914), 105; cf. Ruskm: "Econ- 
omy no more means saving money than it means spending money. It means the 
administration of a house" {A Joy Forever, I, 8, Allen ed., London, 1912, Vol. XVI, 
19) . We shall frequently quote from this monumental edition of Ruskm. 

s Pol. i. I. 2: 6(T0L ij.^v otv otovrai iroKiTiKbv Kal PaaCKiKhv Kal oiKovojMKbv Kai 8e(nroTi- 
k6v eJvai rbv avrbv, ov koKQs \iyovaLv. 

« Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, p. 357; cf. Zmavc, Zeitschr.f. d. gesammt 
Staatswissenschaft, 1902, pp. 59 f., and his references to Boeckh, Jtteyer, and Beloch; 
Kautz, Die Gesch. d. Entwickelung der National Okonomik, p. 133, n. 5; for note on the 
authorship of the Revenues, cf. infra, p. 63, n. 2. 



lO , GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

confusion, which has been too generally missed by modern critics 
and statesmen — that the public is a great property-holder, and 
that pohtics should be a business which requires the application of 
the same economic and ethical laws as are admitted to govern in 
private affairs. 

3. Confusion of economics with ethics and politics — The assertion 
that Greek economic theory was confounded with ethics and 
politics has become a commonplace. The economic ideas of 
Greek thinkers were not arrived at as a result of a purposeful study 
of the problems of material wealth. All economic relations were 
considered primarily from the standpoint of ethics and state 
welfare. *'The citizen was not regarded as a producer, but only 
as a possessor of wealth."' Such statements are too commonly 
accepted as a final criticism of Greek thinkers. Though the con- 
fusion was a source of error, and caused Greek economic thought 
to be one-sided and incomplete, yet some important considerations 
should be noted. 

a) The Socratic philosophers are our chief source for the eco- 
nomic ideas of the Greeks. Too sweeping conclusions should not, 
therefore, be drawn from them as to the general attitude, of the 
Greeks. Xenophon is much freer from the ethical emphasis than 
the other Socratics. Thucydides is entirely free from it, and very 
probably his standpoint came much nearer being that of the 
average Athenian citizen. 

h) The confusion was not merely with individual ethics, for 
Greek moral philosophy always had the welfare of the state for 
its goal. Indeed, the basal reason for this close union of economics, 
ethics, and politics is the true idea that the state should rise above 
internal strife, and unite all in a care for the common interest.^ 

c) The standpoint of the Greek philosophers is certainly no 
more to be criticized than is that of the so-called orthodox political 
economy .3 They represent two extremes. If the Greek theory 

' Ingram, History oj Political Economy, p. 12; cf. Souchon, Les Theories economiques 
dans la Grece antique, p. 34. 

^ Cf. Souchon, op. cit., pp. 31 ff. 

3 Cf. V. Brants, Xenophon Economiste, reprint from Revue Catholique de Louvain, 
1881, pp. 4ff. 



INTRODUCTION ii 

did not give to wealth its full right, and was open to the charge 
of sentimentalism, the Ricardian doctrine, with its "economic 4'' —i' 

man," which eliminated all other ideals and impluses, was an unreal ^^ . . 
and pernicious abstraction. Of the two errors, the Greek is the 
less objectionable, and is more in accord with the trend of economic 
thought today. The best economists are now insisting more and 
more on the Greek idea that economic problems must be considered 
from the standpoint of the whole man as a citizen in society. 
Modern political economy "has placed mkn as man and not 
wealth in the foreground, and subordinated everything to his true 
welfare." "Love, generosity, nobility of character, self-sacrifice, 
and all that is best and truest in our nature have their place in 
economic life."^ "The science which deals with wealth, so far 
from being a 'gospel of Mammon,' necessarily begins and ends 
in the study of man."^ "Es soil kein Widerspruch zwischen 
Ethik und Volkswirtschaft bestehen, es soil das Sittengesetz fiir 
die Wirtschaft gelten und in ihr ausgefiihrt werden."^ Such 
strong statements taken at random from modern economists should 
serve to temper our criticism of the Greek confusion. Plato's 
definition of economics, as suggested by one of the most recent 
historians of economic thought,'' could easily be accepted by many 
a modern scholar: "Economics is the science which deals with the 
satisfaction of human wants through exchange, seeking so to regu- 
late the industries of the state as to make its citizens good and 
happy, and so to promote the highest well-being of the whole." 
The contention of the Socratics, that all economic operations must 
finally root in the moral, that all economic problems are moral 
problems, and that the province of economics is human welfare, 

' Ely, Sticdies in Historical and Political Science, 2d series, pp. 48 ff., especially 
p. 64, where he states that it is a return to the Greek view. 

' Ely, Outlines of Economics, 1908, pp. 4 ff.; cf. Seligman, Principles of Economy, 
(1905), pp. 4 ff., especially p. 14, where he even quotes the sentences of Ruskin with 
approval: "There is no wealth but hfe"; "Nor can anything be wealth except to a 
noble person" {Unto This Last, IV, 77 [Vol. XVII, 105]). All citations will be from 
the Allen library edition unless otherwise stated. 

3 Scho&vibtrgyHandhiich der polit. Econ. (1890), I, 56. 

^Haney, History of Economic Thought, p. 52; cf. Ely, op. cit., p. 48, n. i, cited 
in n. I, above, for a similar definition based on Plato. 



12 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

is thus a dominant twentieth-century idea. And just as the 
ethical interest of the Greek philosophers caused them to empha- 
size the problems of distribution and consumption, so these are the 
phases of economics that receive chief consideration today. To 
be sure, modern thought appreciates more fully the complementary 
truth that all our social and moral problems root essentially in 
economic conditions, though this too was by no means overlooked 
by Plato and Aristotle. 

4. Ascetic tendency. — It cannot be denied, however, that, as 
a result of the overemphasis on the ethical, Greek economic thought 
was hampered by a certain asceticism. But this was also an out- 
growth of pessimistic tendencies in Greek philosophy itself. More- 
over, the ascetic ideas of the philosophers cannot be accepted as 
the common attitude of Athenian citizens, any more than Thoreau 
can be recognized as a criterion of the economic thought of his day 
in New England.^ Asceticism was certainly foreign to the mind 
of Pericles and Thucydides. In the course of our discussion, also, 
we shall find that it represents, after all, only one phase of the 
thought of the philosophers themselves. 

5. Socialistic tendency. — Since Greek economy was chiefly 
interested in the problems of distribution, it tended toward social- 
ism, both in theory and in practice. This was also a natural out- 
growth of the fact that individual interests were subordinated to 
public welfare. Though the latter half of the fifth century wit- 
nessed a great individualistic movement in Greece, and though 
individualism and independence are often named as prominent 
Greek characteristics, yet these terms did not constitute a basal 
political principle, even in the free Athenian democracy, in the 
same sense as they do with us today. The life of the Greek citizen 
was lived far more for the state, and was more absolutely at the 
disposal of the state, than is true in any modern democracy. In 
Greece, politics was thus the social science of first importance, and 
the supreme purpose of all human activity was to make good 
citizens. State interference or regulation was thus accepted as 
a matter of course, and the setting of prices, rigid regulation of 

' Kautz {op. ciL, p. 57) goes to the extreme of saying that antiquity represents 
"die Negation der okonomischen Interessen und der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit." 



INTRODUCTION 13 

grain commerce, exploitation of the rich in the interest of the poor, 
and public ownership of great material interests such as mines 
were not revolutionary ideas, but common facts in Greek life/ 
The tendency of the theorists was therefore naturally toward 
centralization of power in the hands of the state, and an ex- 
aggerated idea of the omnipotence of law.^ Yet despite the error 
inherent in it, this socialistic tendency of Greek economic thought 
had its basal truth, which is becoming an axiom of modern eco- 
nomics and statesmanship— the belief that private property is 
not a natural right, but a gift of society, and hence that its activi- 
ties should be controlled by society, and made to minister to public 
welfare. Indeed, we have by no means escaped the error of the 
Greek thinkers, for one of the most common mistakes of statesmen 
and political theorists today is an overestimate of the effectiveness 
of law. 

' Even abolition of debts and redivision of lands were not unknown in Greek 
history. Grote {History of Greece, III, 105 f . and notes) denies this, but the heliastic 
oath, which he cites (Dem. Adv. Timoc. 746, and Dio Chrysost. Or. xxxi. 332), proves 
that such measures were agitated, or there would be no reason for protective 
measures. Cf. infra, Plato {Laws, 736E), who takes this for granted. Cf. Solon's 
Fragments; Isoc. {Panath. 259) says that it would be hard to find a Greek state, except 
Sparta, that has not fallen into "the accustomed accidents," viz., (naffiv, a-<pay(is, 
<pvyas &v6fiovs, apnayas x/^jM^Wj XP^^" o-iroKoirds, yrjs avaSaafibv, etc. 

^ Cf. infra, for citations and qualifications. 



CHAPTER II 

ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO, AND REASONS FOR THE 
UNDEVELOPED CHARACTER OF GREEK ECONOMICS 

As stated above, the economic ideas of the Greeks were unsys- 
tematized and inextensive.^ The extant literature previous to 
Plato presents only incidental hints on matters economic. Hesiod, 
in interesting antithesis to classical thinkers, emphasizes the dig- 
nity and importance of manual labor.^ The contrast, however, 
is not so great as it appears, for the labor which he dignifies is 
agricultural. He constantly urges its importance as the chief 
source of wealth.^ On the other hand, he opposes the commercial 
spirit that was beginning to be rife in his age, and decries the evil 
of unjust gains."* His mention of the fact of competition between 
artisans of the same trade is of interest for the development of 
industry in Greece .^ His Erga was, in a sense, the forerunner of 
the later Economica in Greek literature. 

Solon proved by his reforms that he had some sane economic 
ideas as to the importance of labor, industry, commerce, and 
money in the development of the state. He also showed some 
insight into the solution of the problem of poverty. His ideas, 
however, are not definitely formulated in his extant fragments, 
and belong rather to economic history.*^ The Elegies of Theognis 

' Cf. infra for qualifications. Zimmern {op. ciL, p. 227) rightly insists: "In 
spite of what is often said, Greece did produce economists." 

'Erga 308, 314, 397 f., 311 (epyov 5' oi5^v 6veiSos, aepylrj d4 t' Sveidoi), 310, 
303-6, 413. Any material in Homer applies rather to a history of economic conditions. 
Cf., however, //. xiii. 730-32; iii. 65; xxiii. 667 on specialization of gifts. 

3 Cf. Erga and Theogony 969-75; cf. n. 2. 

■» Cf. n. 2 above; a common theme of seventh- and eighth-century poets; cf. e.g., 
Sappho (Bergk-Hiller, Lyr. G. Vet, [1897], I, 204, fr. 79 [45]); ir\o\iTo% ivev <tcIj> 
dperds ovk dffivrjs irdpoiKos. Cf. also III, 168, fr. 49 (50), Alcaeus. 

5 Erga 25 f. 

^ Cf . his poems, especially fr. xiii. 43 ff.; Ar. Ath. Pol. x. i; Vhit: Solon 15, 
22-24; Kautz, op. cit., pp. 114 f. and note, on Solon and the other lawgivers; Gilliard, 
Quelque Refortnes de Solon. Cornford {Thucydides Mythhistoricus, p. 66) thinks he 
was "on the verge" of discovering the law that exports must balance imports. 

14 \ 



ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO 15 

are full of moral utterances on wealth, emphasizing its temporary 
nature as compared with virtue/ Pythagoras and his followers 
have often been given a prominent place in the history of com- 
munism, but this is probably due to a false interpretation.^ It is 
likely, however, that he opposed the evils of luxury, and moralized 
on the relation between wealth and virtue.^; Democritus wrote 
a work on agriculture.'' Like the other philosophers, he taught 
that happiness was to be sought in the gold of character, rather 
than in material wealth. s To his mind, poverty and wealth alike 
were but names for need and satiety (kopov).^ Wealth without 
understanding was not a safe possession, depending for its value 
on right use.^ The amassing of wealth by just means, however, 
was good,^ though unjust gains were always a source of evil.^ 
Excessive desire for wealth was worse than the most extreme 
poverty.'" It is possible also that Democritus held to a mild form 
of the social contract theory of the origin of society." Heraclitus 
complained bitterly of the unwisdom of the masses and their 
merely material view of life.'^ He made the common antithesis 
between material and spiritual wealth,^^ and observed the fact that 
gold is a universal medium of exchange.'^ Hippodamas of Miletus 

^Elegies iiiyf., 227 G., iis/f., 181 f., 267 ff., 173 ff., 351 ff., 393 2-, S23 ff., 
621 f., 199 ff., 753, 145 f., 559 f., etc. 

' On this error, cf. infra, on communism before Plato. 

3 Cf. Kautz, op. cit., p. 114; Jamblichus, De Pyth. viL, chap, xii, p. 58; chap, xvi, 
p. 69. 

* Diels, Frag. d. Vorsokratiker (1912), II, 20, 69. 

5 Ihid., p. 95, fr. 171; p. 73, fr. 40. « Ibid., p. 119, fr. 283. 

''Ibid., p. 77, fr. 77; cf. Stob. Flor. 94. 24; xPVfJ-<iTuv XRVC^^ i^" f&V /J-^v XP')''"'- 
Hov els Th iXevOepiov elvai Kal d-rjno(pe\ia- ^iiv avolri 8k x^PVyh i^^V- Cf. Xenophon 
and Plato, infra, on value and wealth. 

^Ibid., p. 78, fr. 78. 9 Ibid., p. 105, frs. 200, 218, 221. 

^°Ibid., fr. 219; p. 106, fr. 224. The ethical fragments of Democritus, cited 
above, may be spurious. Cf. MuUach, Frag. Phil. Gr., I, 138; Zeller {Gesch. d. Gr. 
Phil. I, 2, 925, n. i) leaves the question open. Diels {op. cit., II, 1912) cites the 
above passages under the "echte fragmente," though some are starred. 

" Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 37. 

" Diels, op. cit., I, 83, fr. 29; 5t 5^ iroWbi KeKdpTjrai OKiicnrep KTrjvea. 

'3 Ibid., p. 82, fr. 22; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 2. p. 565, and his comment. 

'■* Diels, op. cit., I, 95, fr. 90: irvpbs avTa/xei^erai irdvra Kal irvp airdvruv, Sxnrep 
Xpvffov xP'ni^^'''o^ k:<^^ xP^/M'^tw xP^<^^^- 



1 6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

and Phaleas of Chalcedon proposed new plans for the distribution 
of wealth, but we have the barest outline of their theories from 
Aristotle." Their systems will be discussed in a following chapter. 

The Sophists, true to their character as philosophers of extreme 
individualism, developed a new theory of the origin of society. 
The already current term 4>vais, "nature," which had been accepted 
as a suihcient reason for the state's existence, was now opposed 
to "law," j'ojuos, as natural to artificial. The Sophists argued 
that, in a primitive state of nature, perfect individualism was the 
rule. Men did injustice without restraint. The weaker, however, 
being in the majority, and finding it to their disadvantage to 
compete with the strong, agreed neither to do nor to suffer injustice, 
and constrained the stronger minority to co-operate in their 
decision. Thus arose the social contract whereby nature gave up 
its real instinct for an artificial convention {(TvvdrjKr]), and thus 
society came into being.^ The theory, at first, though untrue, 
was not intended to be destructive of moral foundations, but was 
opposed rather to the traditional idea of the laws of a state as the 
"decrees of a divinely inspired lawgiver."^ In the hands of men 
like Thrasymachus'* and Callicles,^ however, it became a means of 
denying that the life according to nature was bound by any laws 
which the strong need observe, and that might was the only final law. 

In line with their radical individuahsm, the Sophists were also 
pioneers in the more cosmopolitan spirit that characterized the 
Cynics and Stoics. They taught the doctrine of the fundamental 
worth and relationship of men,^ and thus, with the Cynics, started 
the attack upon the theory that upheld slavery as a natural insti- 

' Pol. ii; cf. infra for details. 

' Cf. Glaucon's tentative argument presenting the Sophist theory, Rep. 358E ff., 
very similar to that of Hobbes. Cf. Barker's {op. cit., pp. 27 ff.) excellent presenta- 
tion of the rise of this theory and its causes. 

3 Cf. A. Dobbs, Philosophy and Popular Morals in Ancient Greece (1907), p. 48. 
For examples, cf. Hippias, cited below, n. 6, or Lycophron, opposed by Aristotle, cited 
below in Aristotle's criticism of socialism {Pol. 1 280610-12). 

* Rep. i, and the story of Gyges, Rep. ii. 

5 Gorg. 482E flf., though CaUicles was hardly a Sophist. 

* E.g., Hippias in Protag. 337C, where he says that men are related {avyyevels, 
oUelovs) by nature, not by law, and that the law is a tyrant of men that does much 
violence contrary to nature (Trapd ttjv <j>'(i<nv). 



ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO 17 

tution.^ Little further is known of their other social or economic 
ideas. Protagoras wrote a work on "wages," but it was probably 
an argument relative to the acceptance of pay by Sophists.^' In 
any event, this fact that the Sophists were so ready to be enriched 
through their lectures is clear evidence that their teaching on 
wealth was not the negative doctrine of the other Greek phi- 
losophers.3 Prodicus seems to have scorned menial labor as 
morally degrading, though he agreed with Hesiod in his doctrine 
of the dignity of all work that is noble.^ He emphasized the 
necessity of labor in the production of material good,s and, like 
Democritus, was the forerunner of the Socratics in his insistence 
upon right use as a criterion of wealth.'' Hippias prided himself on 
his accomplishment in many arts,^ and thus probably did not share 
the prejudice of the philosophers against manual labor. 

Euripides, though markedly individuahstic, like the Sophists, 
shows traces of the older use of nature to explain the necessity 
of the state. He draws a parallel between the social order and 
the order of nature, by which law and government are justified, 
and the right of the middle class of farmers to rule is upheld.^ 

' Cf. Alcidamas frag., cited infra on Aristotle's theory of slavery, and Ar. Pol. 
i. 3. 1253620-23; Lycophron (pseudo-Plut. Pro. Nob. 18. 2) denies the reality of the 
distinction between noble and ill-bom. Cf. also on Euripides, infra. On the devel- 
opment of the opposition to slavery in Greece, cf. Newman, Pol. of ArisL, I, 139 ff. 

= Diog. L. ix. 5s: SIkt, iir^p ^i,r0ov. Cf. Diels, op. cit., II, 220, 231; Croiset, 
Hist, de la Liu. Gr., IV, 54. Souchon (op. cit., p. 23, n. i) thinks that it may have 
taught the dignity of all labor. Cf. also Plato (Sophist 232 D): rd irptoraySpeia .... 
TTfpl T€ TrdXT/j Kai tQv dXXw^ rexvQv. Gomperz (Die Apologie der Heilkunst, p. 33) 
infers that Protagoras had published a Gesammtapologie der Ktinste. Cf. Pol. 299C, 
and Diog. L. ix. 8. 55. 

3 Cf. Plato Protag. 328B, where Protagoras states his rule as to charges for his 
lectures. Cf. Zeller, op. cit., I, 2, 1080 ff., on the earnmgs of the Sophists. Cf. Plato 
Euthyd. 304C: 6ti oidi Tov xPVfJ-o-Ti^ejOai (parop SiaKuMeiv ov54v. 

4 Plato Charm. 163 B-D on Hesiod. 

s Xen. Mem. ii. i. 21-34, the story of Heracles (28). 
' Pseudo-Platon. Eryxias 397 D-E, discussed infra. 

7 Hippias Minor 368 D, where he is presented as the jack of all trades. Cf. 
infra for the antithetic attitude of Plato. 

Wrestes 917-22; Supplices 399-456, 238-45; Phoenissae 535-51 (Dindorf), 
cited by Diimmler, Proleg. zu Platans Staat (1891), to show that there are traces of 
a political treatise of the school of Antiphon in Euripides. Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 25 
and note. 



1 8 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

He emphasizes the importance of agriculture, and the dignity of 
the peasant farmer {avrovpyos) , who works his own land, as the 
stay of the country.^ This latter accords well with his cosmopolitan 
spirit, which he shares with the Sophists. He opposes the arti- 
ficial distinctions of birth,^ slavery ,3 and the traditional Greek 
idea of the inferiority of woman.'' His attitude toward wealth is 
that of the moral philosopher rather than that of the Sophist.^ 

Thucydides reveals considerable insight into economic prob- 
lems, though he does not deal with them directly. Roscher^ 
declares that the Greek historian contributed as much as any 
other writer to give him the elements of his science, since he alone, 
of all Greek writers, did not confuse his economic ideas with ethics.^ 
He recognizes the place of labor in production, and the importance 
of material wealth as the basis for all higher development.^ He 
also has some appreciation of the true nature of capital. In his 
description of the undeveloped condition of early Greece, which 
lived from hand to mouth, he writes like a modern economist 
describing primitive conditions in Europe in contrast to the capital- 
ism of his own day.^ Cornford's attempt' to discredit Thucydides 

^Orestes 917 flE.; cf. also the noble character of the peasant (aiirovpySs) in the 
Electra, who is a noble soul (252 f.), and who speaks the prologue, though he is only 
a secondary person in the play. Cf. also 367-82. 

' Fr. 345 (Nauck), the unjust man is ignoble {Svffytv-^s) , though better born than 
Zeus; frs. 54 (Alex.), 514 (Melanippe), 8 (Electra); cf. n. i above, and infra. He 
puts worthy sentiments into the mouths of slaves and dresses his nobles in rags. 

^ Ion 854; if ydp Tt ToOj SoiiXoiffiv atffxiJj'Tjp 0^pei II rdjuvona; frs. 828 (Phrixus), 515 
(Melanippe) (Nauck); Helena 730; cf. Decharme, Euripide et I'esprit de son theatre, 
pp. 162 ff. 

1 His finest portrayals are noble women. He was no woman-hater, but freely 
presented both sides of female character. Cf . Medea 230 ff. and other such passages 
complaining of woman's lot; fr. 655 {Proles.), advocating community of wives. Cf., 
however, Decharme, op. cit., 133 ff. 

sCf. Nauck, frs. 642 (Polyidus), S5, S6 (Alex.), 95 (Alcmene), 143 (Andromeda), 
326 and 328 (Danae); cf. Decharme, op. cit., pp. 163 ff. and notes; Dobbs, op. oil., 
P- 78,11.5. 

^Op. cit., p. 7: "Ich auch in volkswirtschaftlicher Beziehung von keinen Neuern 
mehr als von ihm gelemt habe." Cf . Kautz, op. cil., pp. 1 23 ff . 

^Thuc. ii. 40. i; i. 70. 8; ii. 40. 2; etc. ^Thuc. i. 2. 

9 Thucydides Mylhhistoricus (1907); cf. Shorey's critical review, Dial, July- 
December, 1907, pp. 202 ff.; also W. Lamb, Clio Enthroned (1914), especially 
pp. 34-67. Lamb's citations of Thucydides (pp. 35 f.), present sufficient evidence 
of the Greek historian's economic insight. 



^ ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO 19 

as a historian, and to show that he missed the true cause, economic, 
of the Peloponnesian War, is not convincing. Cornford both ex- 
aggerates the influence of commercial interests in fifth-century Ath- 
ens and belittles the economic insight of Thucydides. The Greek 
writer is, however, like Herodotus, a historical source for the actual 
economic conditions in Greece, rather than an economic theorist. 

Aside from the fragmentary hints presented above, Greek 
economic thought begins with the Socratics, Plato, Xenophon, and 
Aristotle, and is continued, in a very incidental way, in the orators, 
and in the Stoics and their contemporaries. As we shall see, how- 
ever, even in the Socratics, no real science of wealth is developed, in 
the modern sense. The reason for this lack, which is most com- 
monly emphasized since it is closest at hand, is that the phenomena 
of actual production were but slightly developed. This explanation 
is well summarized by Haney' as follows: (a) that economic rela- 
tions between individuals and states were far simpler than now; 
(6) that international commerce was not encouraged by ancient 
states, whose ideal was rather national exclusion; (c) that public 
finance was then very limited and unimportant; (d) that division 
of labor was not extensive; (e) that the relative lack of security 
of life and property discouraged exchange and saving; (/) that in all 
these respects, the situation is analogous to that of mediaeval 
Europe. 

There is certainly much force in this general reason. The 
development of economic thought must, of course, depend upon 
the actual conditions under which the thinkers live. We have 
already admitted also the vast difference between the present 
economic complexity and the simplicity in ancient Greece. The 
foregoing summary of Haney, however, is misleading. Though 
the ideal of Sparta was national exclusion, it was surely not that 
of Athens and some other Greek states. All extant records agree 
that Athens, at least, the home of the economic theorists, encour- 
aged international commerce by every means in her power. The 
division of labor, while insignificant compared with the minute 
division of modern mechanical industry, was by no means inex- 
tensive, as is evidenced by the fact that this is a point on which 

' Op. ciL, pp. 18 f. 



20 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Greek thinkers show especial insight. The notion that Greek 
industry was chiefly Hmited to household economy, and that the 
era of capitalism had not yet dawned, has long ago been refuted 
by Meyer and others. The alleged insecurity of life and property, 
while relatively true, is exaggerated for Athens, at least. Above 
all, the common attempt to draw an analogy between classical 
Greece and mediaeval Europe economically is due to an utter 
misconception. The period of Greek economic history, which 
corresponds to that of the Middle Ages, is rather the era of eco- 
nomic awakening, between the middle of the ninth and the end 
of the sixth century b.c.^ 

Other reasons for the limited development of Greek economic 
thought are: 

^'^o) The dominance of the state over the individual citizen, 
which fact caused poHtical rather than economic speculation to 
absorb the attention of Greek thinkers. It is stated that the 
importance of the individual must be recognized before a science 
of economics can develop.^ This reason is also usually over- 
emphasized. 

• b) The general prejudice in Greece against industry, labor for 
another, and finance for its own sake. That such a prejudice 
existed to some degree, arising from the old aristocratic feeling, 
moral objections, the reflex influence of slavery, the spirit of inde- 
pendence, and the behef that leisure was necessary for the proper 
performance of the duties of citizenship, is generally admitted. 
The commonly assumed universality of this feeling is, however, 
open to grave question. The prejudice against skilled labor was 
probably limited to the moral philosophers, and perhaps to the 
more aristocratic portion of the citizens, and we shall see in another 

'"Die wirtschaftliche Entwickelung des Alterthums," Kleine Schriften, 1910; 
cf. also Beloch, Zeitschr. f. Socialwiss., II, 21 ff.; "Griechische Geschichte," ibid.; 
Poehlmann, Geschichte des antiken Socialismus und Kommunismus , I (2d ed., 1912, 
Geschichte dcr sozialen Frage und des Socialismus in der antiken Welt). Citations 
from Poehlmann throughout the book are to this work unless otherwise specified. 
He exaggerates the development of capitalism. Meyer and Beloch are also somewhat 
misleading in their use of the modern terms for Greek conditions. Francotte (L'lndus- 
trie dans la Grece ancienne [1900]) is more conservative. For the older extreme con- 
servative view, cf. the works of Rodbertus and Biicher. Cf. itifra for further notice 
of the subject. 

' Haney, op. cii., p. 17. 



ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO 2i 

chapter that the hostile attitude of the philosophers themselves 
has been considerably exaggerated. The evil effects of slavery 
also could not have been so marked in Greece, before the age of 
machinery. Moreover, as Meyer has pointed out, a prejudice 
against manual labor is evident among the more favored classes in 
most European countries today, yet it does not appear to retard 
the advance of industry in the least.^ 

c) The approval of conquest as a legitimate source of wealth. 
This is somewhat true as applied to the state, but it certainly is 
irrelevant for the individual citizen of fifth-century Athens. To 
appeal to Aristotle's hst of legitimate employments as evidence 
of this is to misinterpret his meaning, for he is thinking of a primi- 
tive hfe, not of contemporary Greece.^ 

d) Economic facts are a commonplace of daily life, and famiUar- 
ity breeds contempt.^ This statement contradicts the first reason 
given by Haney. Moreover, it is somewhat unfortunate as apphed 
to Greece, since the very opposite reason is given for the prominence 
of political speculation — the commonness of practical poHtics. 

e) Perhaps the strongest reason for the comparative unim- 
portance of Greek economic thought is usually not emphasized. 
It is the patent fact that almost our only extant sources are the 
Socratic philosophers, who represent avowedly a direct moral 
reaction against the commercial spirit and money-greed of their 
age."* Thus the Hmited development of Greek economics, so far 
from being an evidence of primitive economic conditions in Greece, 
is a direct argument for the opposite. To be sure, a man with the 
scientific mind of Aristotle would scarcely have failed to gain 
a clearer apprehension of certain fundamentals of economics than 
he did, had his economic environment been more complex. Yet 
the fact remains that he and Plato are moral prophets, protesting 
against that very capitalism whose existence many modern his- 
torians have sought to deny to their age. 

' For a full discussion of the Greek attitude toward labor, with citations from 
ancient and modem authors, cf. mfra, p. 29, n. 4; pp. 32 ff., and notes; pp. 47 S. and 
notes; pp. 69 f. and notes; pp. 93 ff. and notes. 

' Pol. i. 8. 125662. 3 Haney, op. ciL, p. 17. 

t Emphasized by Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 593 f. Our citations will always be from 
the second edition, 19 12. 



CHAPTER III 
PLATO 

As seen above, Plato was the first great economic thinker of 
Greece/ Plato, however, was primarily interested in neither 
economics nor politics, but in moral idealism. He is pre-eminent, 
even among the Socratics for this. All his economic thought is 
a direct outgrowth of it, and is shot through with its influence. 
Yet, despite this fact, he exhibits considerable insight into some 
of the basal principles of economics,^ and his entire Republic is 
founded upon an essentially economic theory of society. He 
traces its origin to mutual need,^ and makes httle of the innate 
social impulse, so prominent in Aristotle's analysis.'' He is the 
predecessor of Aristotle, however, in opposing the social contract 
doctrine of the Sophists with its interpretation of law as mere 
convention, by a natural theory of social origins. To his thought, 
the very foundations of society are established in eternal justice. 
They are not the result of mere convention, nor altogether the 
work of inspired lawgivers, but a complex product of natural and 
artificial elements. ^ 

VALUE 

Strictly speaking, Plato's contribution to a theory of economic 
value and a definition of wealth is practically nil. In his dis- 
cussion of just price, he merely hints at the fact of exchange value. 
He impUes that, since goods exchange according to definite pro- 

' To judge by Xen. Mem., this might have been said of Socrates had he been 
a writer. 

' Robin {Platon et la science sociale, p. 239) makes him the forenmner of the triple 
division of economics — production, exchange, distribution — but this is hardly war- 
ranted. 

3 Rep. 369 B-C. 

* Pol. i. chap. 2. But in the Laws, Plato's theory of origins is more social, tracing 
society back to clan and family. 

5 Cf. Laws 889 D-E, 709 B-D, and Robin, op. cit., pp. 224 f.; also the entire 
argument of the Republic on justice. 



PLATO 



23 



portions, they should have a common quahty capable of measure- 
ment, and that Just price corresponds to this.^ He offers no sug- 
gestion as to the nature of this quality, except that, in stating 
that "the artisan knows what the value of his product is," he 
seems to be thinking of labor, or cost of production, as the chief 
element in value.^ 

In other passages, he insists on the doctrine taught previously 
by Democritus,3 and later by Xenophon and other philosophers, 
that so-called goods depend for their value upon the abiHty of the 
possessor to use them rightly." This idea is represented in modern 
thought especially by Ruskin.s The theory is, of course, true of 
absolute value, and, in a sense, even of economic value, in that 
*'all exchangeableness of a commodity depends upon the sum of 
capacity for its use."^ It cannot be made a criterion of economic 
value, though the allied idea, implied by Plato and urged by 
Ruskin, that the innate quality of the thing, its capacity for good 
or harm, is a real element in economic value, is being recognized 
today. This is evident in the increasing hostihty toward such 
so-called commodities as opium and intoxicating liquors. Since 
we have begun to define poHtical economy in terms of human life 
rather than in terms of property, Ruskin's definition of wealth is 
more acceptable: "the things which the nature of humanity has 
rendered in all ages, and must render in all ages to come .... 
the objects of legitimate desire."^ 

' Laws 921B. The word is i^la. 

* Ibid.: yiyvdxTKei yap 6ye drifuovpybs ttjv a^lav, 

3 Cf. p. IS, n. 7 above. 

4 Euthydemus 280B-E, 281B, D, 288E-289A; Meno 88D-E. 

^ Unto This Last, IV, 62: "Useful articles that we can use"; 64: "Wealth is the 
possession of the valuable by the valiant" (Vol. XVII, 86 ff.); Fors Clavigera, Letter 
70 (Vol. XXVIII, 712 ff.); Munera Pulveris, 1, 14 (Vol. XVII, 154); 11,35 (Vol. XVII, 
166 f.). Plato's economic ideas greatly influenced Ruskin. Cf. infra, p. 149, n. 2. 
Cf. also Vol. XXXVIII, 112; XXXIX, 411, of Ruskin. He says, in the preface to 
Unto This Last (Vols. XVII, XVIII), that his "real purpose is to give .... a logical 
definition of wealth," which has "often been given incidentally in good Greek by 
Plato and Xenophon." Cf. ibid., n. i, for other such references. 

« Ibid. 

"> Cf. above note and Mtm. Pul., II, 30, notes; Fors Clav., Letter 70, 3 (Vol. 
XXVII, 713), the "good things." 



24 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

WEALTH 

Plato has much to say of wealth, though he deals with it strictly 
from the standpoint of the morahst. We look in vain for a clear 
definition, or for a consistent distinction of economic wealth from 
other goods. His terms are ttXovtos, used of both material and 
spiritual wealth; xPW^'^o., often interpreted literally of "useful 
things," as the basis of the subjective doctrine of value discussed 
above; /crij/xara, "possessions," and such words as xpv<^os and 
apyvpLov. His use of these terms, especially the first, is ambiguous. 
At times he means material goods only; again, Hke Ruskin, he 
includes every human good, intellectual and moral as well;^ again 
he means "excessive wealth."^ As a result of his conception of 
value, he includes in material wealth all those objects that depend 
for their worth upon wise use and character in the possessor.^ 
Material wealth is regularly placed last by Plato, as inferior to all 
other goods of soul or body, a mere means, and not an end in itself," 
for virtue does not come from property, but property and all other 
goods from virtue. ^ Material goods should be the last thing in 
one's thought,^ and the fact that people universally put them first 
is the cause of many ills to state and individual alike. ^ Wealth 
is not bHnd, if only it follows wisdom.^ ) The things usually called 
goods are not rightly so named, unless the possessor be just and 
worthy .9 To the base, on the other hand, they are the greatest 
evil.'° In all of this, Plato is the forerunner of Ruskin, with his 

' Fors Clav., Lett. 70, 8 f. (Vol. XXVIII, 718 ff.), where he refers to Plato's Laws 
727A. 

» Cf . infra for citations. ^ Cf. p. 23 and notes. 

" Laws 697B, 631C, 728A, 870B; Apol. 29D-E. 

5 Apol. 30B; also Laws 743E; Gorg. 451E; cf. Ruskin, Fors Clav., Lett. 70, 6 and 
II (Vol. XXVIII, 717), where he cites Laws 726-728A, on the value of the soul. 
He also cites Laws 742-743 and Rep. 416E (cf. Mun. Pul. [Vol. XVII, 89, 148]). 

^ Laws 743 E. 

7 831 C-D. Ruskin (Crown of Wild Olive, 83 [Vol. XVIII, 456 f.) cites Critias 
i2oEff., in urging the same idea. He also cites Plato's myth of the metals, Rep. 
416E, in similar vein {Mun. Pul., Ill, 89 [Vol. XVII, 211]). 

8631C cited by Ruskin, Mun. Pul, III, 88 (Vol. XVII, 210). 

9 661A, 661B; iSe/*. 331A-B. 

^"Laws 661B; Hipp. Maj. 290D; Menex. 246E. 



PLATO 25 

characteristic assertions: "Only so much as one can use is wealth, 
beyond that is illth"; and "Wealth depends also on vital power in 
the possessor."^ 

Plato especially inveighs against excessive wealth and luxury.^ 
Men are urged not to lay up riches for their children, since great 
wealth is of no use to them or the state.^ The prime object of 
good legislation should not be, as is commonly supposed, to make 
the state as rich as possible,'' since excessive wealth and luxury 
decrease productive efficiency ,s are incompatible with the highest 
character or happiness, being based on both unjust acquisition 
{KTrj(7Ls) and unjust expenditure {avaXufjiaTa) ,^ produce degenera- 
tion in individual and nation,' and are the direct cause of war^ and 
civic strife.^ Were it feasible, he would prefer to go back to the 
simpler life of earlier times, before luxury and the inordinate 
desire for riches had so dominated all society/" Of course he 
reahzes that such a return is impossible, but he has Httle hope 
of any other escape from the evils. He is thus led to express the 
behef that the fewer wants the better, a doctrine common also 
to Ruskin, Carlyle, and Thoreau." 

^ Mun. Put., II, 35 ff.; he refers to both Xenophon and Plato as being right 
on this point. Cf. Fors. Clav., I, 8 (Vol. XXVII, 122); Unto This Last, 64 (Vol. 
XVII, 89). 

^ Rep. S50D, 373D: iinv Kal iKfivoi OLtpQxnv aiiroiis iTrl XPVI^'^'^'^'' KT^inv Aireipov 
inrtp^dvres rhv rOiv dvajKaluv 6pov. On dTreipos cf . infra under Aristotle. Cf. Dobbs, 
op. cit., pp. 202 f. and note, on the evil results of excessive wealth and poverty 
in the Greece of that age. Like Ruskin, Mun. Pul., VI, 153 and note (Vol. XVII, 
277), who cites Laws 736E; Aratra Pentelici, IV, 138 (Vol. XX, 295 f.) on money as 
the root of all evil, citing Laws 7osB. 

^ Laws 72g A. 47420. ^ Rep. 421D. 

* Laws 742E, especially ir'Kovalovs d' a5 ff(p6dpa Kal dyadoiis dSiivaTov. For the 
modern application of this doctrine, cf. infra; cf. also 743A, C; Rep. S50E, S51A, 

' Rep. 422; cf. 372E ff. on the ^Xeyp-alvovcra state. 

*373E; Phaedo 66C. Compare the modem doctrine that lasting peace is impos- 
sible under the present economic system. 

^ Laws 74.4D: dLda-raa-is; also a basal idea of the i?e_^«Wi(;. 

" This is the spirit of the Republic throughout, but cf. especially 369C-374D, 
and p. 25, n. 7. 

"Laws 736E: Kal ireviav r)yovp.ivovi dvai /xt] rb ttjv ovalav iXdrru troieiv, dWd rb 
Tr)v dir\7]<rTlav irXelu. Cf. infra on Xenophon for similar ideas. Carlyle, Sartor 
Resartus, chapter on "Everlasting Yea": "The fraction of life can be increased in 



26 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

However, Plato has no prejudice against moderate wealth. 
His sermons are directed against excessive commercialism, which 
puts money before the human interest,"" thereby causing injustice, 
degenerate luxury, vicious extremes of wealth and poverty, political 
graft, individual inefficiency, and wars both within and without 
the state. Though his philosophy leads to asceticism, and his 
attitude toward wealth seems, on the surface, to breathe this spirit, 
yet Plato is not an ascetic in his doctrine of wealth, as is often 
wrongly asserted. He describes the true attitude as that which 
partakes of both pleasures and pains, not shunning, but mastering 
them."* He recognizes an assured competency to be practically 
a prerequisite for the development of the good life,^ while, on the 
other hand, he considers poverty to be an evil only second to 
excessive wealth ."• 

To be sure, Plato's demand for a limitation of private and 
national wealth, and his general negative attitude are, if inter- 
preted rigidly, unfruitful and economically impossible.^ It is not 
business that should be curbed, but bad business.* Individual or 
nation cannot become too prosperous, provided there is a proper 
distribution and a wise consumption of wealth, and Plato's idea 
that great prosperity is incompatible with this goal can hardly be 
accepted by modern economists. 

Nevertheless, there is much of abiding truth in his doctrine of 
wealth. Aside from the profound moral value of his main con- 
tention, we may state summarily several points in which he remark- 
value not so much by increasing your numerator as by lessening your denominator." 
Ruskin, Time and Tide, II, 5 ff. (Vol. XVII, 319 ff.); of. 320, n. i, for other references. 
Thoreau: "A man is wealthy in proportion to the number of things he can let 
alone" — an overemphasized truth. 

' So Socrates {Apol. 41E, 29 D-E) and Jesus (Matt. 6:33). ' Laws 634A. 

3 Rep. 329E-330A, 330D-331B; cf. also the prayer of Phaedrus 279C: rb di 
Xpvffov irXTjOoi et-q /xoi Sffov fji-r)T€ &yeiv d6vair^ AXKoi fj 6 ffJxppuv, Laws 679B; Gorg. 
477E: t/s oCv T^x"^ ^f^** '^''■'''''^^'^■'■^^'; 06 XPW''''0''"'«^; cf. also 4S2C. 

^ Cf. preceding notes; also Rep. 421D-E; Laws 744D. 

5 Bonar {Philosophy and Political Economy, pp. 13 f.) criticizes Rep. 400-402 for 
not seeing that unlimited wealth is necessary for the realization of the highest art and 
beauty. 

'Plato also emphasizes this, Laws 743E, 870B: ov XPV vXovTeTv ^t)T€iv rbv ev5ai- 
/lova itrbjievov, oXKk SiKalws irXovTeiv /cat (xwcppdvwt; 660E; though he implies that 
unlimited wealth is necessarily evil. 



PLATO 27 

ably anticipated the thought of the more modern humanitarian 
economists: (i) in the fact that excessive private wealth is practi- 
cally impossible without corresponding extremes of poverty, and 
that such a condition is a most fruitful Cause of dissension in any 
state; (2) in the fact that extremes of wealth or poverty cause in- 
dustrial inefficiency; (3) in the prevalent belief that no man can gain 
great wealth by just acquisition, since, even though he may have 
done no conscious injustice, his excessive accumulation has been due 
to unjust social conditions ; (4) in the growing belief that expendi- 
tures of great private fortunes are not likely to be helpful either 
to individual or to community, but are too liable to be marked by 
foolish luxury and waste that saps the vitality of the nation; to 
Plato, such are mere drone consumers of the store {rcbv iToificov 
avdXcjTTjs, .... Krj4>r]v) ;'^ in this, he was a forerunner of Ruskin, 
who opposed the old popular fallacy that the expenditures of the 
wealthy, of whatever nature, benefit the poor;'' (5) in the dominant 
note in economic thought today, so emphasized by Plato and 
Ruskin, that the prime goal of the science is human life at its best 
— as Ruskin states it, "the producing as many as possible full- 
breathed, bright-eyed, and happy-hearted human creatures";' 
(6) in the fact that the national demand for unlimited wealth is 
now recognized, as Plato taught, always to have been the most 
fruitful cause of international differences; (7) in the fact, which 
is receiving ever-greater recognition by modern economists and 
statesmen, that the innate quality of the object for good or harm 
must be considered in a true definition of economic wealth.'' 

PRODUCTION 

Plato seems to have had little positive interest in the problems 
of production. He was too much engrossed with suggesting means 
for limiting excessive acquisition. He was, however, quite apt 

' Rep. 552B-D; cf. Robin, op. cit., p. 243, n. i, on Kr]<j>-fiv. 

^ In Mun. Pul., Ill, 91 (Vol. XVII, 213), he makes Circe's swine a type of false 
consumption; cf. Fors Clav., Letter 38 (Vol. XXVIII, 3° 2-); Mun. Pul., Pref., 16 
(Vol. XVII, 139 f.); Queen of the Air, III, 124 ff. (Vol. XIX, 404 ff-); Pol. Econ. of 
Art, I, 48 ff. (Vol. XVI, 47 ff.); Unto This Last, IV, 76 (Vol. XVII, 102); Mill also 
attacked this idea. 

3 Unto This Last, II, 40 (Vol. XVII, 56); cf. also Mun. Pul., II, 54 (Vol. XVII, 
178 f.). 

< Discussed above. 



2S GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

in his use of illustrations from industrial life.^ He was also appa- 
rently the first to give a real classification of trades,^ as follows: 
furnishers of raw materials {irpcoroyepes eUos), makers of tools 
(opyava), makers of vessels for conserving products (d77€ta), 
makers of vehicles (oxvi^'O-), manufacturers of clothing and means 
of defense (7rpojSXi7juara) , workers in fine arts (iraiyvLov) , producers 
of food {dpefxfxa) — a fairly inclusive catalogue for that age; if com- 
merce and the learned professions were included. But some of the 
classes overlap, since they follow no necessary principle of division. 
He divided productive arts into co-operative {(xwaLriovs) , which 
provide tools for manufacture, and principal (dtrtas), which pro- 
duce the objects themselves.^ They were further divided into 
productive arts (TrotTyri/cat), which bring something new into 
existence, and acquisitive {KT-qriKai) , which merely gain what already 
exists. In the latter class, he placed all commerce, science, and 
hunting."* Plato would thus appear to exclude commerce and the 
learned professions from the true sphere of production. This, 
however, is only apparent, in so far as legitimate exchange is con- 
cerned. He clearly understood that the merchant and retailer 
save the time of the other workers,^ and that they perform a real 
service to the community, in that they make necessary exchange 
convenient and possible.^ He thus recognized them as producers 
of a time and place value, and he cannot be accused of the physio- 
cratic error, which denied productivity to all workers except those 
who produce directly from natural resources.^ His distinction 

' Cf. Pol. 281D-283A, for an excellent description of the weaving industry; also 
Crat. 388C ff.; Phileb. 56B, on carpentry. 

' Pol. 287D-289B; cf. Espinas, op. cit., pp. 35 f.; "L'Art economie dans Platon," 
Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII (1914), 106 ff. 

3Po/. 281D-E; d. aho Phaedo ggA-B; Phileb. 27 A; Timaeus ^GC-B. 

'^ Sophist. 219A-D. Bonar's {op. cit., p. 20) criticism of this on the ground that 
learning may produce something new, while the arts may merely change the shape 
of things, takes Plato too seriously. We have here only a characteristic Platonic 
generalization. Cf. Shorey, Unity of Plato's Thought (1903), p. 64, n. 500, on the 
foregoing passages from Sophist, and Pol.; cf. Robin, op. cit., pp. 231 f. 

^Rep. 371C. 

^ Laws 918B-C, especially ttws yap ovk evepyirrjs iras Ss Slv oiifflav xpW'i^wv wvri- 
vuvovv, dff'u/j.p.erpov odcrav Kal aj'ti/uoXoy, b/j.aX'fivTe Kal cip-jxerpov direpydi^eTai. 

' Cf. DuBois, Precis de Vhistoire des doctrines economigues dans leurs rapports 
avec les fails et avec les institutions, pp. 45-47, comparing Plato and Aristotle on this 



PLATO 29 

of productive and acquisitive arts can, furthermore, hardly be 
interpreted as intending to limit production to the material merely, 
though learning is relegated to the acquisitive class. Such an 
interpretation would be out of harmony with the whole trend of 
his thought.' His further classification of productive agencies 
as creative (eveKa rod irote'lv tl) or preventive {rod ixr) iraax^iJ^y sub- 
stantiates this, for many of the preventive agencies are intellectual 
and scientific. 

' The general attitude of Plato toward economic production may 
be inferred from his insistence upon the thorough application of 
the division of labor for the perfection of industry .^ He evidently 
recognized it as the necessary basis of all higher Hfe. We have 
seen above, also that one of his chief objections to excessive wealth 
or poverty was the fact that they caused inefficiency in production .j 
Agriculture. — Of the three factors that enter into production — 
land, labor, and capital — the most important in the mind of the 
Greek thinkers was land. The relative prominence of agriculture 
was partly the cause of this, but in the case of the philosophers, 
their ethical passion, their idea of the necessity of leisure for 
personal development, and their conservative attitude toward 
industry and commerce were the chief motives that impelled them 
to urge their contemporaries back to the simple life of the farm.'*] 

point. Laws 743D and Plato's attitude on agriculture (cf. infra) might seem to 
point the other way. Cf. infra, p. 41, nn. 7-10. Espinas (Revue des etudes Grecques, 
XXVII [1914], 247, n. i) is extreme in calling him a physiocrat. The term woiild 
more nearly apply to Aristotle. 

' Ar. {Pol. vi [iv]. 1291012-19) so interprets him, because he finds the origin of 
the state in physical needs {Rep. 369C S..), but this is a carping criticism. Blanqui 
is hardly fair to Plato on this point {Histoire de I'economie politique en Europe, p. 88). 
Cf. above, p. 22, n. 4, on Plato's other theory of origins. 

= Pol. 279C. 

3 Cf. infra and Poehlmann, op. cit., 1, 574. 

^ As we shall see, the third reason has been exaggerated for the philosophers. On 
the favorable attitude to labor at Athens, cf. V. Brants, Revue de Vinstruction publique 
in Belg., XXVI (1883), 108 f., 100 f.; he distinguishes between the doctrine philoso- 
phique and the doctrine politique. So also Guiraud, La main-d'ceuvre industrielle 
datis I'ancienne Grece (1900), pp. 36-50; Zimmern, op. cit., pp. 382 ff., 256-72. 
For the older view of general prejudice against free labor in Greece, cf. Drumann, 
Arbeiter und Contmunisten in Griechenland u. Rom (i860), pp. 24 ff. Francotte 
{Ulndustrie) takes the more conservative position. Cf. infra for further notice of 
this problem. 



30 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

The aristocratic feeling, still strong in European countries, that 
landed property is the most respectable, probably also had some 
influence, though land was not so distinctively in the hands of the 
upper classes in Attica. 

Though the praise of agriculture was a characteristic feature 
of Greek literature in all periods, it was not at first a conscious 
economic theory.^ Later, toward the end of the fifth century, it 
became a definite ethico-economic doctrine of the philosophers, 
as a criticism of their times, and as an appeal to what was deemed 
to be the more healthful life of the earlier days. 

Plato does not devote so much attention to this theme as do 
Xenophon and Aristotle. His standpoint, however, is practically 
the same, though his tendency toward the physiocratic error is not 
so marked. In his second state, he orders that agriculture shall 
be the only means of money-making,^ and he even strikes the 
modern note of conservation, in his directions for the care of 
land, waters, springs, and forests.^ On this point, he and the 
other Greek thinkers accord well with the economy of the past 
decade with its urgent preachment, "Back to the land," though 
the modern watchword has, of course, a more economic emphasis. 

Capital. — Though the function of capital, aside from natural 
resources, was a famiUar fact in the Athenian life of the fifth and 
fourth centuries B.C.,'' there is scarcely any consideration of it by 
the theorists before Aristotle. Plato has no definition of capital, 
nor indeed scarcely any recognition of the fact of its existence.^ 
His emphasis on the virtue of economy, however, and his criticism 
of those who spend the "stored wealth," imply the idea that wealth 
should be used not merely for enjoyment, but also for productive 

^ Hesiod Erga; Theog. 969-975, though even here it is opposed to commerce. 

* Laws 743D, but he would even limit this, so that it may not become a sordid 
occupation. 

3 Laws 760E-761C, 763D. Ruskin cites this in Fors Clav.; cf. Vol. XXEX, 546. 

■* Cf. pp. 19 f., and notes; cf. also p. 106, n. i. The extensive commerce of Athens 
necessitated the presence of a comparatively large amount of money capital, and a 
large amount was also invested in slaves. For further notice, cf. infra, p. 68, 
nn. 8 ff., on the terms. 

sBut cf. Laws 742C (/c€0d\ato»'), and infra, under Xenophon, on the terms for 
capital. 



PLATO 31 

purposes.^ His strictures upon interest show that he has but 
slight appreciation of the productive function of money-capitah" 
Labor and industry. — On the other hand, Plato has considerable 
insight into the role of labor in production. To be sure, he shares 
with the other philosophers a certain prejudice against manual 
labor as degrading to freemen.^ The mechanical arts call forth 
reproach.'* Free citizens should not be burdened with such ignoble 
occupations,^ and any person who disobeys this rule shall lose his 
civic rights until he gives up his trade .*^ Agriculture alone shall be 
open to them, and only so much of this as will not cause them to 
neglect their higher welfare.' However, this prejudice has been 
read into some passages in Plato by a forced interpretation. The 
assertion of Socrates,^ that craftsmen have not temperance (o-w^- 
poarvvq), since they do other people's business, is made merely to 
draw Critias into the argument. The statement that all arts 
having for their function provision for the body are slavish,' does 
not necessarily imply prejudice against physical labor. Such 
arts are .slavish, to Plato, because they have no definite principle 
of service as gjnnnastics has. He is merely illustrating the point 
that it is an inferior type of statesmanship that works without 
a definite principle for the highest political welfare. The idea, 
expressed in the Politics,^" that the masses (ttX^^oj) cannot acquire 
political science is a criticism against unprepared statesmanship 
rather than against labor. Indeed, Plato asserts the same of the 
wealthy." 

^ Cf. Rep. 552B, and p. 27. Kautz (op. cii., p. 119) overemphasizes this; cf. 
Souchon, op. cit., p. 91, n. 2, who observes, however, that Plato, by his insistence upon 
collectivism in landed property implies that "la terre est tou jours un capital, et que 
la fortune mobiliere ne Test jamais." 

' Cf. infra on money. 

3 On the general attitude toward labor in Athens, cf. p. 30, n. 4. On Plato's 
regard for the laborer, cf. infra, under distribution. 

* Rep. 590C, but only for him whose higher nature (rd rod ^eXrlffrov el5os) is 
naturally weak, though the implication is that this is characteristic of the artisans. 
Cf. Poehlmaim, op. cit., II, 49 f. 

s Laws 842D, 806D-E, 741E, 846D, 919D. 

' 847A. 8 Charm. 163A-C. "> 292E, 289E-290A. 

' 743D. » Gorg. S17D-S18E. " Ibid. 300E. 



32 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Moreover, the following facts should be observed: that the 
prejudice of Plato against the manual arts is chiefly limited to the 
Laws; that even there his prejudice is primarily against retail 
trade rather than against industry;' that in so far as a real hos- 
tility exists, its true source is not in any opposition to labor or indus- 
try per se, but rather in the political belief that only as citizens have 
leisure for politics can prepared statesmen take the place of super- 
ficial politicians,^ and in the moral feeling that constant devotion 
merely to the physical necessities of life causes men to neglect the 
primary purpose of their existence.^ : 

Modern scholars have usually been extreme in their interpre- 
tation of Plato on this point."* Such unwarranted generalizations 
as the following are common: "II ne decouvre dans les professions 
qui tendent au lucre qu'egoisme, bassesse d'esprit, degradation 
des sentiments." "Platon et Aristote voient dans le commerce et 
dans I'industrie deux plaies de la societe; ils voudraient les extirper 
k'iond, si cela etait possible."^ One of the worst misinterpretations 
has been perpetrated by Roscher, in inferring from the Republic 
(372 ff.) that Plato "das Leben der Gewerbetreibenden als ein 
Leben thierischen Behaglichkeit schildert, sie wohl mit Schweinen 
vergleicht."* Such absurdities are unfortunately not rare, though 
they might be avoided by a careful reading, even in a translation.'' 

' Cf. Rep. 371C for a contrast in his attitude toward the two; cf. Bonar, op. cil., 
pp. 21 f. 

2 Laws 846D, 847A. Ruskin {Fors Clav., Letter 82, 34 [Vol. XXIX, 253 f.]) 
contrasts the fevered leisure that results from extreme money-making with the true 
leisure, citing Laws 831. 

3 Laws 743D. The aristocratic Greek feeling of independence against selling 
one's powers to another, and the fact of the frank acceptance of slavery, by most 
contemporary thinkers, as the natural order, also exerted some unconscious influence. 

* Cf . infra for citations from Zeller, and Poehlmann's able, but somewhat extreme, 
defense of Plato (op. ciL, II, 36 ff.). He cites Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, V, I, 
Ft. 2, art. 2, in similar vein to Plato, on the ill-effects of mechanical labor, despite his 
undoubted interest in the industrial arts. 

5 Francotte, ULndustric, I, 246, in reference to the Laws. 

^ Op. cit., p. 26, n. 2. 

' Eisenhart {Geschichte der Nationalokonomie, p. s) also says that Plato calls 
" Volkswirtschaf t gerade zu den Staat der Schweine." Dietzel ("Beitrage zur Ge- 
schichte des Socialismus und des Kommunismus," Zeitschrift fUr Literatur und Ge- 
schichte der Staatswissenschaflen, p. 397, n. i) criticizes both the foregoing. 



PLATO 33 

It should not be overlooked either that Plato's utterances on 
labor are by no means all negative. Skilled labor is recognized 
in several of the minor dialogues as fulfilling an actual need in 
civilization. Laborers are represented as having their part in 
knowledge and virtue/ and are admitted to be the necessary 
foundation of all human well-being.^ A positive interest is also 
manifested by Plato in labor and the proper development of the 
arts in both the Republic and the Laws. He constantly harps on 
the necessity of each doing his fitting work, and doing it well, and 
in his opinion happiness consists in this rather than in idleness.^) 
(^ Indeed, that each one perform well the task for which nature has 
fitted him is the definition of justice itself.'* The indolent rich 
man is a parasite and a drone, a disease of the state. This is 
Plato's favorite figure in both the Republic and the Laws, a figure 
that is suggestive of Hesiod, the pioneer champion of labor.^ He 
is even ready to admit that it is, after all, not the kind of labor 
but the character of the workman that ennobles or degrades any 
work.^ In fine, his attitude toward the mechanical arts is similar 
to that of Ruskin, who also thinks that manual labor is degrading.' 

^ Sympos. 209A; Phileh. 56C. ' Protag. 321E. 

3 Rep. 420E, 421C; Laws 779A, 807A-E, 808C. The passages in the Laws apply 
particularly to the work of the soldier and the citizen. Cf. Ruskin, Unto This Last, 
I, 22 (Vol. XVII, 40) for a similar idea that the function of the laborer is not pri- 
marily to draw his pay, but to do his work well. 

*Rep.4ssA. 

' Rep. 552A, C, S64E; cf. Laws 901A, where he refers to the passage in Hesiod's 
Erga 304: Kr]<l>r)vi<Tcn Kodoipois. Cf. p. 27, n. i, above. Poehlmann {op. cit., II, 
87 f.) points to Plato's demand that woman be freed, so that the total number of free 
workers may be increased, but Plato is thinking only of the ruling class. 

* Laws 918B-919C, referring to retail trade; but if he could admit it for this, he 
siu-ely could for the industries. Cf. Aristotle's passage on liberal and illiberal work 
{Pol. 133765-22). 

"> Miin. Pnl., V, 105 and note (Vol. XVII, 234 f.), where he refers to Plato's 
diminutive, avOpajTriffKoi, as applied to laborers {Rep. 495C; Laws 741E); Time and 
Tide, 103 (Vol. XVII, 402), 127 (p. 423 and note); Crown of Wild Olive, 2 (Vol. 
XVIII, 388), on the furnace; Lectures on Art, IV, 123 (Vol. XX, 113); on the evil 
effects of arts needing fire, as iron-working, where Xen. Econ. iv. 2, 3 is cited. He 
makes frequent reference to the Greek attitude, e.g.. Vol. XVIII, 241, 461, and above. 
But he was not absolutely opposed to machinery; cf. Cestus Aglaia, 33 for what is 
called the finest eulogy of a machine in English Uteratiure. He even anticipated the 
great future mechanical development {Mim. Pul., 17). 



34 



GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 



But as with Plato, the chief secret of his prejudice lies in the fact 
that laborers usually do their work mechanically, without thought. 
He beheves that "workmen ought often to be thinking, and think- 
ers ought often to be working." He is willing to classify all work 
as liberal on this basis, the only distinction being the amount of 
skill required.' However, in agreement with Plato's idea, he 
would set the roughest and least intellectual to the roughest work, 
and this he thinks to be "the best of charities" to them." With 
Plato, he is also convinced that, under actual conditions of labor, 
the degradation is very difficult to avoid, and therefore he would 
emphasize chiefly agricultural labor, where education of head and 
hand are more fully realized.^ 

It is, however, in Plato's constant insistence upon the principle 
of the division of labor, as a prerequisite for any succces in the 
mechanical arts or elsewhere, that he reveals insight into, and 
interest in, productive labor. This is the basal idea in the Republic. 
It is also one of the chief regulations in the Laws, where its direct 
application to the artisan is a clear evidence that he appreciates 
the economic significance of the principle.'' To him, it is the 
foundation of all human development. Society finds its source in 
mutual need (17 rjiierepa xp€ta) . Man is not self-sufficient (avTapKTjs) . 
Reciprocity is necessary even in the most primitive state. ^ Out of 
this necessary dependence arises the division of labor, a beneficent 
law, "since the product is larger, better, and more easily produced, 
whenever one man gives up all other business, and does one thing 
fitting to his nature, and at the opportune time."^ 

'Stones of Venice (Vol. X, 201); cf. also IV, 6 (Vol. XI, 202 f.), where he cites 
Plato i4/c. 1. 129. 

=" Fors. Clav., VII, 9 (Vol. XIX, 230). 

3 Cf. Vol. XXVII, Intro., p. Ixv. 

*Rep. 370A-C and many other passages. Cf. infra; Laws 846E-847A. Cf. 
infra on the unfair interpretation of Rep. 421A by Zeller and others. Plato implies 
by the passage merely that specialization is more important for the statesman than 
for the cobbler (421C). 

^Rep. 369C. Adam Smith makes this the basal fact of exchange (Wealth of 
Nations, I, ii). 

" Rep. 370C: 7rXe/w re iKaara ylyverai Kal KiWiov Kal pg.ov, brav els tv Kara <pi<nv, 
Koi iv KaipQ ax°^vv '^^^ 6.\\wv Aywv, Trpdrrji. He first states the principle less plausi- 
bly as a literary device, Rep. 369C; cf. 433A. 



PLATO 35 

The basis of this law Plato finds in the fact of the diversity of 
natures, which fits men for different tasks/ In this he differs from 
Adam Smith, who beHeves that the differences of natural talents 
in men are much less than is generally supposed. Smith makes the 
propensity to barter the source of specialization, which, in turn, is 
based on the interdependence of men. He thus considers the 
diversities in human nature to be the effect rather than the cause 
of the division of labor."" Plato, however, is probably nearer the 
truth, since the very reason for mutual interdependence is diversity 
of nature.^ 

The advantages of specializatiorl, according to Plato,^ are four, 
as stated above. It enables one to accomplish more work with 
greater ease, more skilfully, and at the proper season. The second 
and fourth of these are not mentioned by Adam Smith, but he notes 
the resulting increase in opulence for all the people, and the develop- 
ment of inventive genius. He also observes that the division of 
labor causes the growth of capital, and that this in turn increases 
specialization. 5 Of course Plato could not appreciate the important 
fact of the influence of the division of labor on the development of 
inventive genius, since he lived before the age of machinery. 

Plato is also a forerunner of Adam Smith in his recognition of 
the fact that the division of labor depends for its advance upon 
a great increase in the size and complexity of the state. ^ It means 
a multiplication of trades, a development of industry ,7 the entrance 
of the retail trader (KairrjXos) ,* and the invention of money as a means 
of exchange.' The necessity of the division of labor between 
states is also recognized. It is impossible to establish a city where 
it will not be in need of imports (eTreLaaycoyliicov) . International 
trade therefore arises, and with it are born the merchant {eixTopos) 

' Rep. 370C, B. ' Op. cit., I, chap. ii. 

3 So Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology (1900), III, 342-49. Cf. also 
Ruskin, Fors Clav., IV, 15 (Vol. XXVIII, 160). 

^ Rep. 370B-C, 374B-E. 

s Op. cit., I, chap. i. Plato implies the increase in wealth. Haney (op. cit., p. 41) 
observes that Plato thought especially of the advantages of division of labor to the 
state, rather than to the individual. Cf . further Wealth of Nations, II, Intro. 

^ Rep. 370C-371B; cf. DuBois, op. cit., p. 37. 

1 Rep. zyoC-B. *37iC. 93716; Iaw5 918B. 



36 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

and the sailor class, together with all those who are engaged in 
the labor of the carrying trade.' Thus Plato, the idealist, and 
reputed enemy of trade and industry, develops them directly out 
of the basal principle of his Republic. He appreciates the necessity 
of a full-fledged industry and commerce to the existence even of 
a primitive state, and his hostility to them is actually directed 
only against what he terms their unnatural use.^ Moreover, in 
his opinion, one function of the division of labor should be to limit 
them to the performance of their proper tasks, and keep them from 
degenerating into mere money-making devices. It should also 
result in limiting such vocations to the less capable classes since 
the rulers should be artisans of freedom.^ 

It would take us too far afield to discuss the diverse ways in 
which Plato uses his principle. We may observe in passing, 
however, that he appHes it to war, in his interesting criticism of 
the citizen-soldier;'' to the finer arts, even when they are quite 
similar to each other ;5 to politics, as noted above; to justice and 
the moral life in general f and to the intellectual life, in his unspar- 
ing critcism of the superficial versatility and dilletantism of the 
contemporary Athenian democracy, which trusts the government 
to any incompetent, professes to be able to imitate everything, and 
makes the many-sided Sophist (roXXaTrXoOs) the man of the hour.^ 
Though he begins with the development of the principle as an 

' Rep. 370E-371A. In the Laws, he does not extend the principle to international 
trade. Cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 17. 

' Poehlmann {op. cit., II, 185 f.) notes a contradiction between Plato's insistence 
upon the division of labor and his desire for the simple life. But the philosopher is 
aware of this, and knows that the simpler ideal is impossible. Cf. V. Brants, Revue 
de Vinstr. pub. en Belg., XXVI (1883), 102-4, OQ the fact of the extensive division of 
labor in Athenian industry. 

3 Srjuiovpyoiis i\ev6fplas; Rep. 39sC, 434A-D; cf. also 420B-421B. In the 
Laws, the artisans and traders are non-citizens (846D, 847 A, 918B-C), not because 
of prejudice primarily, but for the sake of better government. 

* Rep. 374B-E. 

5 395 A-B; cf. Adam's note to 395 A, explaining Sympos. 223D, where Plato asserts 
the opposite. He thinks Plato is speaking ideally in the Republic passage, but here 
of the actual fact. But cf. Shorey, Unity, etc., p. 78, n. 597. 

^ Rep. 433A-B, D, 434A-D, 432A, 443-444A, 396D-E; Charm. 161E. In his 
broad application of the law, he has advanced beyond Adam Smith. Cf. Souchon, 
op. cit., p. 81 and n. 2. 

1 Rep. 397E-398A. 



PLATO 37 

economic fact, his primary interest in it is as a moral and 
intellectual maxim. The fact that the cobbler sticks to his last 
is only a symbol (eUojXov) of justice.^ Nevertheless Plato does 
appreciate to a remarkable degree the economic bearings of the 
law, and his discussion of it is notably scientific and complete.^ 
He sometimes pushes its application to an extreme, though such 
instances are perhaps meant in a playful Socratic vein.^ At least, 
like Ruskin, he understands that extreme specialization must 
produce narrow and one-sided men, and that progress revolts 
against its too rigid application.'' He is aware too that the division 
of labor breaks down in the case of the poor unemployed of the 
state, since they have no special work.^ 

SLAVERY 

Plato is not blind to the ethical aspects of the problem of slavery. 
In his first healthy state (vyLelvrj), slavery and war are conspicu- 
ously absent, and it is the natural inference that the author believed 
these to be necessary evils of the more complex state .^ He appre- 
ciates the dangers of absolute power, even in private life, and 
beheves that few men can stand the strain.'' He conceives human 
nature as a unity that defies absolute division into separate classes.* 

^ 443C-D; cf. Nettleship Lectures on the Republic of Plato, p. 71. 

' Oncken observes (Geschichte der Nationalokonomie, pp. 34-36) that while Smith 
drew from the law the idea of freedom of trade and industry, Plato inferred the 
strictest subordination of these to the will of the state, and that he also based the 
caste system on the principle. For the alleged caste system, cf. Souchon, op. cit., 
p. 82, and infra, under distribution. Aristotle's state implies even a more rigid sepa- 
ration of the capable few. On Plato's insight into economic principles, cf. Robin, 
op. cit., pp. 229 ff. He criticizes Guiraud for belittling the value of Plato's social 
ideas, and urges that he should be judged, not by the worth of his proposed remedies, 
but by his scientific insight (p. 252). 

3 Rep. 395A-B; 374E, 395B; eh <TiJ.i.Kp6repa KaTaKepixarla-dai. 

* Apol. 21C-22E; cf. Rep. 495D-E, though it applies rather to the evil effects 
of the banausic life. Cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 16. Ruskin {Stones of Venice, VI, 16 
[Vol. X, 196]), says: It is "not the labor that is divided but the men — divided into 
segments of men." It stunts their faculties. 

5 Rep. 5S2A. ^ 396C-373E; cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 27. ^ 579^. 

^ Cf. Zimmern, op. cit., p. 389, note; Laws 777B: drjXov ws iireiSi) Sv(tko\6v iffn to 
dpififia dvdpwTTOi Kal irphz ttjv dvayKaiav 8i6pi(ri.v, rb 8ov\6v re epy<p diopi^ecrdai Kal iXeiffe- 
pov Kal 5e(Tir6Ti]v oiidafius eijxpv<'"rov ediXei elvat re Kal yiyvecrdai. On his alleged caste 
system, cf. above, n. 2, and infra. 



38 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Though he does not renounce slavery in the Republic, he would 
limit it to the barbarians and to those who seem unfit for the higher 
life/ It plays a remarkably small part in his first state, and it 
would seem that his idealism is here struggling against what he 
feels to be an economic necessity. In the Laws, he frankly accepts 
the necessity, and puts even agriculture, as well as the other 
industries, into the hands of slaves.^ However, they are not to 
be treated as animals, but as rational men, in whom a proper usage 
may develop a certain degree of morality and ambition for good 
work.' To be sure, his purpose is economic rather than ethical — 
to make the slaves satisfied with their lot, and thus better pro- 
ducers.'* He makes no mention of freedom as a reward for good 
behavior, though he elsewhere provides for the existence of freed- 
men in the state, and stipulates that they shall not become richer 
than their former masters.^ 

MONEY 

As Plato was the first of extant Greek thinkers to grasp the 
principle of the division of labor, so he was the first to give any 
hint as to the origin of money. He states that it came into use by 
reason of the growth of necessary exchange, which in turn resulted 
from increased division of labor.^ 

The function of money he defines somewhat indefinitely by the 
term ''token of exchange, "^ an expression suggestive of Ruskin's 

' Rep. 469C; cf. Pol. 309A. 

' Laws 806D. For Ruskin on slavery, cf. infra on Aristotle. 

i Laws 776D-777E. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 256) 
observes that Plato adopts the mean between the two extremes in his attitude to 
slaves. 

* Cf. Xen. Ath. Pol. i. 10-12 on the easy life of slaves in Athens, and Zimmern, 
op. cit., pp. 382 f., who points out that this resulted from economic necessity. Cf. 
777C-D; cf. Rep. 578D-579A on the dangers and troubles arising from extensive slave- 
holding. 

^ Laws 915A ff., another striking evidence of the actual status of freedmen and 
slaves in Athens. 

' Rep. 371B. The word is vbixKryjo., something established by usage, hence "cur- 
rent coin," not necessarily suggestive of intrinsic worth, as are xP'^Ma^a and the metals. 
Cf. Ar. Clouds 248 for a play on the word, Oeol rifuv v6fj.i<rfj.' oiK e<XTi. Cf. the simile, 
Frogs 720, and Phaedo 69A, for an analogy between it and wisdom. 

'i?e/>. 371B: ^vfi^oXov TTJs aWayiis, 



PLATO 39 

definition "a ticket or token of right to goods.'" It seems to 
imply that money is not itself a commodity to be trafficked in. 
(In the Laws, he specifies more clearly the functions of this symbol. 
It acts as a medium of exchange and as a measure of value.^ The 
latter office is performed by reason of the fact that money is a 
common denominator of value, changing products from incom- 
mensurable (aavixfxeTpov) and uneven (avoiiJiaXov) to commensurable 
and even .3 

Since Plato did not consider money to be a commodity to be 
bought and sold, and since he did not appreciate its productive 
function as representative capital, his theory of interest was super- 
ficial. His attitude toward it was somewhat similar to that of 
many people today toward speculation in futures in the stock 
market, as a practice contrary to public interest and policy. The 
application of the term tokos to interest by Plato"* and Aristotle, 
as though interest were the direct child of money, is probably only 
a punning etymology, and not intended seriously. It can there- 
fore hardly be used, as it often is, to prove the superficiality of the 
theory of the Socratics. Plato, however, would have no money- 
making by usury ,s nor indeed any loaning or credit at all, except 
as an act of friendship.^ Such contracts should be made at the 
loaner's own risk,7 and held legal only as a punishment for breaking 
other contracts.^ He calls the usurer a bee that inserts his sting, 
money, into his victims, thereby beggaring them and enriching 
himself.^ 

Such strictures against interest were common in mediaeval 
Europe, reappeared in Ruskin,'" and are implied in the present 

' Fors Clav., IV, ii, note (Vol. XXVIII, 134 f.); cf. also Vol. XVII, 50, 194 f. 

' 742A-B: v6fj.i(TfjLa 5' iveKa dWayiis; 918B: i^eviropeiv Kal 6fj.a\6TT}Ta rats ovalais, 
referring directly to traders. 

3 Laws 9 1 8B . s Laws 743D . 

^Rep. 553E; for Aristotle, cf. infra. ^849E. 

7 742C, 915D-E; Rep. SS6A-B; Laws 850A. 

* 921C, an obol per month. ' Rep. SSSE. 

^"Fors. Clav., notes to Letter 43, 14 (Vol. XXVIII, 121 f.), notes to Letter 81, 16 
(Vol. XXIX, 212), where he refers to Plato and Aristotle; Mun. Pul., IV, 98, note 
(Vol. XVII, 220), where he absolutely condemns it; On the Old Road, Vol. XXXIV, 
425, on usury, ends with a citation from the Laws 913C; A fJ^V Karidov, fir) dv^rj. 



40 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

opposition, in some quarters, to so-called "unearned income."^ 
The motive in mediaeval times, however, was distinctively reli- 
gious, and was also partly due to the absence of a developed capital- 
ism. With Ruskin and modern theorists, on the other hand, the 
objection is, at bottom, socialistic. The motive of the Socratics 
was essentially moral and political. 

Plato's other error concerning money, as above observed, was 
that it need possess no intrinsic value for domestic use. He looked 
upon gold and silver as causes of degeneration in state and indi- 
vidual,^ and would therefore have put a ban on them for use within 
the state.^ To his mind, a mere state fiat was sufficient to give 
currency and value.'' This doctrine has also often recurred in the 
history of economic thought, as in Ruskin and the Greenback 
party of a generation ago.^ The error, however, was not so grave 
in Plato's case, for he, at least, recognized the need of the precious 
metals for international purposes.*^ Moreover, in his proposed 
state of such limited extent, the problem would have been far 
simpler, and he would have distinguished between actual condi- 
tions and possibilities in Greece and his admittedly more or less 
Utopian ideal. 

EXCHANGE 

Exchange in Greek economy held a very minor place, compared 
with its dominant importance in modern theory. It was dis- 
cussed chiefly in a negative manner, as the object of the moral and 
aristocratic prejudice of Greek thinkers. We find, however, some 
appreciation of its true place in the economic life of a state. Plato 
divides trade, dXXa7i7 or ayopaariKi], into avToiroiXLKrj , which sells 
its own products, avrovpyoov, and fxeTa^iXrjTLKr] , which exchanges 
the products of others. He further divides the latter into KaTrrjXLKT}, 
the exchange within the state, which he calls one-half of all the 

' E.g. J. Scott Nearing's recent book on Income. 

'Laws 679B, 831C; Rep. 54562., 548B. Cf. Ruskin on the evils arising from 
money, Vol. XX, 295 f. 

3 Laws 743D, 742A-B, 801B. -i 742A. 

5 Ruskin, Mun. Pul., I, 25, He thinks it is a relic of a barbarism that will dis- 
appear as civilization develops. 

* Laws 742A-B. 



PLATO 41 

exchange, and iniropLKrj, foreign commerce.' He finds its origin 
in the division of labor, and in the mutual interdependence of men 
and states." He understands the necessity of the reciprocal atti- 
tude in international, as well as in private, exchange, and thus has 
a clearer insight than the mercantilists and some modern statesmen. 
A state must raise a surplus of its own products, so as to supply the^ 
other state from which it expects to have its own needs satisfied.^i 

Since a tariff on imports played little part in Greek Ufe, except 
in so far as it was imposed for sumptuary or war purposes," the per- 
plexing modern problem of the protective tariff scarcely came 
within the horizon of Greek thinkers. Plato would prohibit the 
import of certain luxuries, as a moral safeguard. He divides 
merchandise into primary and secondary products, and would not 
permit the import of the latter .« Elsewhere, however, he legislates 
agamst imposts upon either imports or exports, though unconscious 
of the significance of his suggestion.^ 

('He appreciated something of the function of exchange in 
society. It performed a very important service, as a mediator 
between producer and consumer.' Like money, it served to 
equalize values, and thus acted as an aid to the satisfaction of 
needs .^ When limited to this primary function, it was of advan- 
tage to both parties to the exchange,' and merchants and retailers 
had then a real part in the production of values.'" 

The sweeping assertion is too often made that the Greek people 
were hostile to trade, and therefore that their theorists were espe- 
cially opposed to it. We have already seen how false this idea is 

I Sophist. 223C-D; cf. Pol, 289E for the triple division of commercials, xd^v'^oi, 
ilivopoi, and dpyvpafiol^oi- cf. Phaedo, 69A for a figurative use of dWay^. 

" Rep. 370A-E, home; 370E-371E, foreign; cf. Adam Smith's idea above. 

3 370E-371A; Cornford {op. cit., p. 66) wrongly asserts that Plato did not know 
the law that exports must balance imports. Cf. op. cit., p. 37. 

t Boeckh, Die Staatanshaltung der Athener, I, pp. 382 ff.; Zimmem, op. cit., ist ed., 
p. 317. But cf. Brants, Xenophon Economiste, p. 18, n. 2 and references, on the pro- 
tectionist tendency of the commercial policy of Athens. 

sLaws 847C; Souchon (op. cit., p. 102) sees in this a mercantile trend, but the 
purposes are entirely different. 

«847B. ■! Rep. 371C-B. » Laws giSB-C. 9 Rep. ^egC. 

" On the relation of exchange to production, cf. above, p. 28. 



42 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

for the Greeks themselves/ but it also needs a great deal of quali- 
fication in the case of their writers. Their hostility is directed 
especially against the more petty business of retail trade {KaTrjXLKrf) 
rather than against the extensive operations of the merchant 
(epixopos) . But their opposition even to this is not entirely undis- 
criminating. We have seen that Plato clearly understands the 
necessity of exchange to the Hfe of the state.^ He admits that 
even retail trade is not necessarily evil.^ The chief reason why it 
appears so is because it gives free opportunity for the vulgar greed 
of unlimited gain, which is innate in man."* If the noblest citizens, 
who are governed by rational interests, should become retailers 
and innkeepers, the business would soon be held in honor .^ 

Plato, however, would limit exchange to its primary function 
as defined above.^ Like Ruskin, he believes that, whenever it is 
pursued merely for private gain, it becomes a source of degeneration 
to individual and state. It is then akin to the fraudulent or 
counterfeit pursuits (kl^StjXols) J The retailers in well-ordered 
states are generally the weakest men, who are unable to undertake 
other work.^ The rulers in the Republic must keep themselves 
entirely free from the trammels of trade, lest they become wolves 
instead of shepherds,' though Plato is grappling here with a very 
real problem that still faces us — how to prevent graft among 
pubhc servants.'" In the Laws, retail trade is entirely prohibited 
to citizens," and permitted only to metics and strangers," and, 
indeed, only to those whose corruption will be of least injury to the 
state.'^ These aliens are not to be permitted to gain overmuch 
wealth,'"* and they must depart from the state, after twenty years' 

'Pp. igff. 3 Laws gi8B. sgigE. 

' P. 41 and notes. ■* 918D. ^ P. 41 and notes. 

' Laws 918A, g2oC. He seems to feel that trade as regularly pursued is a form of 
cheatery, in which one gains what the other loses. Cf. Ruskin, Unto This Last, I, 
22 (Vol. XVII, 40 f.); IV, 66 ff. (Vol. XVII, 90 ff.); Mun. Pul., IV, 95 flf. (Vol. XVII, 
217 ff.), where he refers to Rep. 426E, on the difficulty of curing this disease of traders; 
cf. Vol. XVII, Intro., p. xlvi, citing Xen. Mem., iii. 7. 5, 6, on those who are "always 
thinking how they may buy cheapest and sell dearest." 

^Rep.$yiC. 9416A-417A. 

" Cf. 415E, xP'?A'tt''''<'"''"'^'is in contrast to <TTpa.Ti(iiri.K6is. 

" 741E, 743D, 919D. " 920A. '3 919D. 

"t 915A-B, though it applies especially to freedmen. 



PLATO 43 

residence, with all their belongings.' Retail trade, even in their 
hands, must be strictly limited to the demands of the state,^ and 
confined to the market-place for the sake of publicity .^ All 
exchange must be honest, deahng with unadulterated products 
{aKlj38rfKov) ^ There shall be no dickering over sales, but only one 
price shall be set upon goods each day. If this is not accepted, the 
goods must be removed from sale until the following day.^ If 
possible, the executors of the laws should try to fix a just schedule 
of prices, to allow of moderate gain, and should see that this is 
observed by the retailers.* As a climax to all these precautions, 
Plato would have the rulers take pains to devise means whereby 
the retailers shall not degenerate into unbridled shamelessness 
and meanness of soul.'' Under such limitations, he has faint hopes 
that retail trade may be freed of its stigma, so as to do least harm 
to those who pursue it, and to benefit the whole state.^ 

It need not be observed that this attitude of Plato toward trade 
and commerce is alien to the spirit of economic progress, and that 
no advanced civilization could be developed on such a basis. His 
profuse legislation, too, as above outlined, strikes a modern as 
naive and visionary.' No man, however, is more aware of this 
than Plato himself. He should be judged, not in a spirit of rigid 
literalism, but with a sympathetic criticism which tries to under- 
stand the psychological reasons for his attitude. His suggestions 
are not offered as a proposed scheme for actual legislation," but 

' 850B-C, and n.i, above. " 919C. 

s 849D-E, 850A, 91SD; cf. infra on this and the other regulations in their appli- 
cation to modem economics. 

4916D-E; cf.917. 5917B-D. 

^92oB-C. Plato's market regulations would exclude all selfish competition and 
all gain, beyond mere return for labor expended, from exchange, and would base it 
upon a mutual spirit of reciprocity. Thus here, as often, he is the model for Aristotle, 
who usually fails to recognize his debt. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII 
[1914], 246) is hardly in accord with the modern spirit in declaring that competition 
is the social bond, and that Plato misconceives the nature of this bond. 

7920A-B, 919D. ^ Laws g2oC. 

'Zimmem (op. cit., p. 280, n. i) calls it "grandfatherly." 

" But cf. Robin, op. cit., p. 212, n. i, who argues that many of his suggestions are 
based on actual legislation in Athens or elsewhere in Greece. Cf. also Hermann, 
Ges. Abh. (1849), PP- 14I) iS3i i59) whom he cites; J. Schulte, Quomodo Plato in 



44 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

rather in the spirit of the moralist, who, observing that almost 
inevitable evils accompany retail trade and commercialism, with 
human nature as it is, and that commerce, the servant of man, has 
become his master, sees almost the only hope of escape in its limi- 
tation to what is barely necessary. The age-long problem of a 
greedy commercialism, which is blind to the appeal of all other 
goods when profits are at stake, Plato certainly saw clearly, and 
outlined with the hand of a master. The problem faces us still, 
in a form even more acute, but the protests of Plato, Ruskin, and 
Carlyle are bearing positive fruit today, in a political economy that 
takes as its supreme goal human life at its best. 

But aside from these generalities, a sympathetic study of Plato's 
thought on exchange reveals an insight into certain specific points, 
of interest to modern economics, which are commonly overlooked. 
His protest against the former axiom of economics, that the prime 
purpose of trade is profit, and that the mere fact that goods change 
hands, necessarily increases the wealth of a country, is substan- 
tially correct.^ Commerce for commerce' sake is a clear case of 
mistaking the means for the end, and is contrary to sound eco- 
nomics as well as ethics. The objections of Plato and Ruskin^ 
against the principle too generally accepted by business and 
economy of the past, at least tacitly, that "it is the buyer's function 
to cheapen and the seller's to cheat," are being recognized today 
as worthy of consideration. 

The anxiety of Plato over the effect of trades or professions 
upon character is well worthy of modern imitation, and this is, to 
a considerable extent, an economic as well as a moral question. 
Zimmern^ has well observed: ''Our neglect to study the effect of 
certain modern professions upon character, when we are always 

legibus publica Atheniensium instituta respexerit (1907, dissertation), and the bibli- 
ography cited there. But he deals very little with Plato's economic and social laws. 

' Plato saw that it might add a time and place value (p. 41, and notes). 

^ Cf. above, p. 42, n. 7; also Fors Clav., Letters 45, 82; Crown of Wild Olive, II, 
75 {. (Vol. XVIII, 450 f.). He argues that there should be no profit in exchange, 
beyond merely the payment for the labor involved in it. He insists that "for every 
plus in exchange there is a precisely equal minus." Cf. infra on Aristotle for a 
similar idea, pp. 107 ff. 

3 Op. cit., p. 278, n. 2; cf. above, pp. 42 f. 



PLATO 45 

insisting, and rightly, upon the importance of a character-forming 
education, is one of the strangest lapses, due to the sway of nine- 
teenth-century economics." 

As we have seen, one of the chief purposes of Plato in his limi- 
tation of commerce was to eliminate graft from the government. 
Though his remedy was not acceptable, yet his remarkable appre- 
ciation of a very grave problem that still faces us should be recog- 
nized. Furthermore, no better solution for it has ever been offered 
than the separation of politics from big business. This was the 
underlying principle of his suggestion, and it is in accord with the 
trend of modern statesmanship. 

Another impelling motive of Plato in his stringent legislation 
was to render impossible the development of extremes of wealth 
or poverty in the state. Again, we should credit him with having 
clearly appreciated the problem, though we may criticize his 
attempted solution. The great commercial prosperity of today 
has made the situation vastly more acute, and still economics has 
no satisfactory solution to offer. After all, in the light of modern 
tendencies toward the regulation of industry and commerce, some 
of Plato's ideas do not seem so "grandfatherly," but rather pro- 
phetic, and in accord with sound economy. His legislation against 
the sale of adulterated products,^ and in favor of publicity in busi- 
ness,^ and state supervision of prices^ has a startlingly modern ring. 

POPULATION 

The problem of population and food supply, which disturbed 
Malthus and some of the other English economists, was also a cause 
of concern to Greek thinkers. This might well be expected, since 
it is a recognized fact that the source of the grain supply was always 
a matter of grave concern to Athens and many other Greek cities.'* 

'Cf. p. 43. ^Ihid. 

3 Jbid. Cf. Ruskin's more socialistic idea that all retailers be made salaried ofl&- 
cers {Time and Tide, XXI, 134 [Vol. XVII, 427]). 

^ Cf. e.g., Dem. De corona 87; Cant. Lept. xx. 31; Cant. Andr. xxii. 15; Cant. 
Lacril. xxxv. 50; Lysias xxii; Hdt. vii. 102; Thuc. iii. 86, and many other passages. 
For modem discussions, cf. Droysen, Athen und dcr Westen (1882), pp. 41 ff.; Grimdy, 
Thtccydides and the History of His Age (1911), pp. 58-95; Zimmern, op. cit., ist ed., 
PP- 349 ff-; Gernet, "L'Approvisionment d'Athenes en ble," Melanges d'histoire, 
ancienne, 1909; Bdoch, G. G., I, 406 f.; Bevolkerung im AUerthum (1898), p. 30, etc. 



46 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Plato states the problem clearly and hints at a solution, when he 
says that the natural increase of population in his state shall not 
exceed the economic basis for it.^ In the Laws, he suggests specific 
means for preserving the proper number by restraining over- 
productive people, and by encouraging the opposite.^ If such 
general provisions should not prove sufficient, he would then resort 
to colonization. 3 On the other hand, should population be greatly 
depleted by war or disease, he would even open the doors of citizen- 
ship to the undesirable classes.'' His interest in the problem of 
population, however, is primarily moral and social rather than 
economic. Moreover, in antithesis to Malthus, he limits his 
consideration to a very small, artificially constructed state. With 
the narrow political vision of a Greek, he thinks that the pro- 
duction of a multitude of "happy-hearted" men in a state is impos- 
sible.5 

DISTRIBUTION 

As stated in the Introduction, the economic interest of Greek 
thinkers was particularly alive in the fields of distribution and 
consumption. It is here that they are especially interesting and 
suggestive.*^. However, they dealt very little with the important 
principles of distribution as laid down by modern economists. 
Theories of the several elements that enter into distribution — 
wages, profits, and rent — are for the most part conspicuously 
absent.'^ 

The problem of distribution is also hardly considered from the 
modern standpoint. We look in vain for a treatment of the 

' Rep. 372C: oiix virip rrjv ovcrlav iroio{)fj.evoL roi/s TratSas. 

' Laws 740D ; but his specific methods for carrying out his difficult suggestion, 
if he had any to offer, were probably impracticable, judging by his discussion of women 
and children in the Republic. Ruskin's suggestions for meeting the problem are 
colonization, reclamation of waste lands, and discouragement of marriage {Unto 
This Last, IV, 80 [Vol. XVII, 108]). 

3 Laws 740E; Ar. {Pol. 126566-12) unfairly criticizes him for limiting the amount 
of property, and making it indivisible, while failing to provide against a too high 
birth-rate. 

t 741A. 5 Cf. Ruskin, cited above, p. 27. 

^ For the Greek term, cf. infra on Aristotle. 

7 Cf., however, Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 12-14, discussed infra, which may be a suggestion 
of a theory of profits. 



PLATO 47 

modern dominant question of the relation between capital and 
labor. Moreover, the Greek theories of distribution are, on the 
whole, not the outgrowth of the sentiment of human sympathy 
for the poor and the common laborer, which is so prevalent today. 
The purpose seems to be to guard against dishonesty rather than 
oppression from either contracting party.^ This lack in Greek 
theory is not strange, in an age when slaves took the place of 
machinery, so that capital and labor were largely united in them, 
while the majority of free laborers worked directly for the public, 
or on the land.^ The goal of the theorists, therefore, is the con- 
servation of the state rather than the rehef of any class of the 
citizenship. 

Plato discusses the importance of a proper distribution of 
wealth in the Republic, but the point that looms large to him is the 
fact that excessive wealth or poverty is likely to endanger the 
stability of the state.^ As seen above, also, some of his regulations 
in the Laws seem to strike a modern note. He would have a state 
commission fix prices,'' would permit the state to limit the freedom 
of inheritance,^ and perhaps even intervene in securing a just 
wage.^ Yet in all of this, the dominant motive is to avoid civic 
discord. ) 

Before proceeding to the larger subject in distribution, Plato's 
theory of private property, we will discuss briefly his attitude 
toward the laboring classes.^ It is commonly asserted that the 

^ Laws 921A-D, discussed on p. 39, n. 8; cf. also 847B. 

' The passages above cited, n. i above, need not imply labor for capitalists. It 
does not appear that there was ever a considerable body of free citizen laborers at 
Athens, who worked for capitalists, though the number of free workers, aside from 
labor on the farms, was fairly large. Cf. C.I. A. for records of such labor on the 
buildings of the acropolis; Boeckh, op. cit., I, 58: "Der geringere war durch seine 
Umstande so gut als der arme Schutzverwandte oder Sklave zur Handarbeit ge- 
nothigt." On the favorable attitude toward free labor at Athens, cf. above, p. 29, 
n. 4. Poehlmann {op. cit., in loc.) takes the opposite view as to the number of free 
laborers for capitalists. 

^Rep. 5S2B-D, a characteristic passage; Gorg. S07E; Laws 757 B. 

^92oC. 5 740B fF.,923; but his purpose is to keep the allotments intact. 

^8476: fiiffdQv di avToTs Trepl Kal ruv dvaipiffeuv tQv ep-yuv, /col idv Tis airoiis 
Srepot ^ Keivol riva ^XXov dSiKucn, M^XP' SpaxfJ^i'i}' Trevr-qKovra d<rTVv6/xo(. 8i.adt.Ka^6vT<av, 
etc.; perhaps a strained interpretation. 

7 On his attitude to industry, cf. pp. 32 ff. 



48 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Greek philosophers had little or no regard for the masses. As 
usually expressed, however, the statement is very unfair, and 
especially to Plato. Such extreme assertions as the following are 
frequent: "They [the masses] are of no account altogether."* 
Plato in the Republic "voue a I'ignominie, au mepris, a la misere, 
a la servitude eternelle la classe des ouvriers."'' ''Fiir die des 
Erwerb obhegenden Personen bedarf es keiner Erziehung."^ 
"Plato, in treating of the ideal state, deems it not worth while 
to concern himself with the trading and artisan classes."'' "Und 
im iibrigen will er sie [the masses], wie es scheint, durchaus sich 
selbst iiberlassen."^ . 

To be sure, as above admitted, the interest of Greek thinkers 
was not marked by the modern sentiment of sympathy for the 
laborer. Their writings are characterized by a certain aristo- 
cratic feeling, and they do not emphasize the worth or importance 
of the masses. Yet they are far from being indifferent or hostile 
to them. 

Aristotle himself was the first to make this false criticism of 
Plato.*^ But the author of the Republic foresaw that he might be 
misinterpreted, and excused himself for his indefiniteness in the 
details of the ideal state.'' Moreover, Aristotle's criticism is not 
borne out by a study of the Republic. Plato implies with sufficient 
clearness that his communistic regulations are Hmited to the two 
upper classes.^ It is not true either, as Aristotle asserts,' that 
there is a rigid caste system in the Republic. The very opposite 
principle is laid down.*" The myth of the three metals presents 

^ Bonar, op. ciL, p. 29. 

' Bussy, Histoire el Refutation du Socialisme (1859), p. 119. 

3 Oncken, op. cit., p. 34. * Haney, op, cit., p. 16. 

^ZeMer, Phil. Gr., II, i (1889), 907; cf. also above, pp. 32 f. Historians of eco- 
nomic thought generally state the case extremely; e. g., Kautz, op. cit., p. 59; Blanqui, 
op. cit., p. 45; Souchon also, to some extent. Poehlmann {op. cit., II, 36-108) errs 
in the opposite way. 

^ Pol. ii. 5. 1264011-17, 36-38; 1264^11-13. 

7423D: w$ S6^eiev Avrii; also 42SD, both cited by Poehlmann. 

*4i5E-4i7B, 420A-421C admit of no other interpretation. Cf. 421C, how he 
turns to the next related point {rod rodrov dde\<l>6v) the question of the eflect of wealth 
or poverty on the artisans (roi>s dWovs drjuiovpyovs) . Cf. also infra for other citations. 

9 Pol. 1264036-38, repeated by many moderns. " Rep. 41SB-C. 



PLATO 49 

an aristocracy based strictly on intellectual and moral excellence. 
No arbitrary obstacle hinders either the degradation or the rise of 
any individual from his class. It depends entirely upon the 
possession of the gold of character and mentality, for which all 
may strive. Moreover, the hfe of the so-called first caste is liter- 
ally dedicated to the best service of the rest. If this be aristocracy, 
we cannot have too much of it.^ 

Neither is Aristotle's criticism warranted, that Plato makes 
the happiness of the whole state something different from the sum 
of its parts.^ He merely states the principle, universally true, 
that no class has a right to expect to be happy at the expense of 
the whole state, and that, in the long run, the prosperity of each 
is bound up in the prosperity of all. Indeed, he puts the very 
objections of Aristotle and Grote into the mouth of Adeimantus, 
and answers them satisfactorily, in his illustration of the painted 
statue.3 There could hardly be a better example of Plato's lofty 
ideal, that each part is to contribute its share toward the utility, 
beauty, and happiness of the whole, and that through this co- 
operation each realizes the highest quantum of happiness for 
himself. This doctrine of mutual interdependence is the basal 
principle of Christianity, taught by Jesus and Paul in a strikingly 
similar figure of the body and its members,'' though naturally 
Plato's idea of brotherhood is narrower in scope. 

The common assertion that Plato has no regard for the artisan 
class, then, is unwarranted.^ The entire Republic is built upon the 
opposite principle, to prevent exploitation of the lower by the 
upper classes; and his comparison of good and evil rulers to 

' Cf. the undiscriminating statement of Souchon, op. cit., p. 41: "Et il n'y a 
guere eu, au cours de I'histoire de la science politique, de conception plus aristocratique 
que le mythe fameux des trois races d'or, d'argent et d'airain." 

= Pol. 1264615-25, repeated by Grote and others. ^ Rep. iv. beg.-42iC. 

'^ I Cor. 12: 14 ff.; for other evidence of Plato's interest in all classes, cf. 519E ff., 
and the entire argument against Thrasymachus, Book I. 

5 Rep. 42 1 A, cited by Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 907, as evidence of this, states merely 
that it is more important that there be efficient rulers than efficient cobblers. Cf. 
Poehlmann, op. cit-, II, 36-^108, a masterly defense of the Republic on this point, 
criticizing both Zeller and Gomperz. He errs on the other side, however, as e.g., 
p. 96, where he infers from Rep. 462C that Plato intended his commimism to apply 
to the whole people. 



50 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

shepherd dogs and wolves^ is a precursor of the famous passages of 
Milton and Ruskin on the same theme. All classes of citizens in 
the state are brothers.^ The rulers are saviors {aicrrjpas), allies, 
shepherds (Troltieves) , nurses {Tpo(j)ias), paymasters, and friends.^ 
This happy unity {dfxovoia), or harmony (^u/i^coj'ia) , of all classes 
is to Plato the highest goal toward which the true statesman should 
strive,'' and the point of next highest importance to the communism 
of the guards is the proper regulation of wealth and poverty for the 
artisans.^ The mere fact that he does not believe the artisans to 
be capable of political independence by no means indicates that he 
is indifferent to their social or economic welfare. It is to conserve 
this that he would put the government into the hands of the most 
capable,^ and, in any event, the artisans are not to be held in sub- 
jection so much by external force as by their own free self-restraint.'' 
This, in itself, is sufficient evidence that Plato intended to include 
the third class in his lower scheme of education, a fact borne out 
also by other passages.^ 

It must be admitted that a somewhat different spirit pervades 
the Laws, where he seems to have despaired of the lofty ideal of 
the Republic. He relegates the working classes to non-citizenship. 
But here, also, he is still anxious that they shall have the sort of 
education that befits their station,' and that justice be done them.'" 
(He also provides against the existence of beggary in the state.'*) 
Whatever may be said of his aristocratic spirit, therefore, he cannot 
be justly accused of the gross indifference of the early nineteenth- 
century economy and of modern capitalism toward either masses 
or public, in their concern for material wealth." 

Mi6A-B,4i7B. 

' 4isA, introducing the alleged aristocratic myth. 

3 463B, 417B, 416A, S47C. " 431E-432A, 443E, 423D. 

5 421C-E, cited on p. 48, n. 8. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., 11, 91. 

6590C. 7 43iD-E,434C. 

*378B, E, 377B, insisting upon proper stories for all children; 915E-520A, 
implying that the artisans shall share in all benefits of the state up to their 
capacity. 

»643B-C. "847B,92iC-D. " 936B-C. 

" Mill is an exception, but despite his thoroughgoing definitions of economics. 



PLATO 51 

COMMUNISTIC AND SOCIALISTIC IDEAS 

The Greek theory of distribution was employed chiefly in the 
criticism of the institution of private property, and in the sug- 
gestion of more or less communistic systems to succeed it. This 
tendency, however, was not like the modern either in motive or in 
general type. Modern socialism aims to be scientific, and pro- 
fesses to build a scientific system on a basis of economic laws. 
Greek sociaHsm had no such aim. It did not lay claim to any 
relation to economic law, but frankly presented itself for what it 
was, a politico-moral sentiment. Other points of distinction will 
be observed as we proceed, but this primary one must not be 
overlooked, if either the spirit or the meaning of the Greek social 
theory is to be understood. 

Two considerations made the communistic sentiment a normal 
one to the Greek democrat, (a) The institution of private property 
had not become so thoroughly imbedded in the very foundations 
of society as it has today. The custom of family tenure was not 
entirely forgotten, and in some backlying districts may well have 
been still in vogue.^ In some states, also, a part of the land was 
probably still held in common by the citizenship. The frequent 
establishment of cleruchies in conquered territories, in which the 
land was regularly assigned by lot, and the ever-recurring revo- 
lutions, which usually resulted in confiscation of the land in favor 
of the victorious party, must have assisted materially in unsetthng 
the confidence of the Greeks in private property as a basal insti- 
tution of society. The actual existence of a polity Kke that of 
Sparta, where private ownership does not seem to have been so 
absolute,^ doubtless also exerted its influence on the imagination 
of Greek thinkers, (b) As is generally recognized, the Greek, far 
more than the modern, took for granted the subordination of the 
individual citizen to the state. We have also seen that he tended 
to magnify the power of legislation as sufficient to encompass any 
reform, even in the face of economic laws. To him, therefore, the 

' Cf. Ar. Pol. ii. 1266617-24. 

'On the Spartan system, cf. Guiraud, La Prop, fane, pp. 41 f.; Poehlmann, 
op. ciL, I, 75-98, both of whom oppose the more extreme theory of communism in 
Sparta. 



52 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

demand that the state be made the dispenser of private property 
did not seem unnatural.' We should be on our guard, however, 
against exaggerating the extent of this sentiment among the 
Greek writers, or against reading into them the modern socialistic 
doctrines. 

A consideration of the predecessors of Plato in social speculation 
may be conveniently introduced at this point, before we proceed 
to the discussion of the Republic. Some have thought to find 
traces of communism in Homer. The evidence of any real com- 
munism, however, is very slight, and the frankly individualistic 
spirit of the poems is against it. Moreover, this is a problem that 
concerns the economic conditions rather than the theory.^ Little 
is definitely known of Pythagoras and his school, but it is improb- 
able that he either taught or practiced a real communism.^ 

As for Hippodamas of Miletus, it is difficult to gain a clear idea 
of his ideal state from Aristotle's meager description,'' but it seems 
not to have been markedly socialistic. He divides his body of ten 

' On this general subject, cf. Guiraud, La Prop, f one, 573 f.; cf. S. Cognetti de 
Martiis, Socialismo Antico (1889), pp. 515-17, on socialistic tendencies in Greek 
constitutions and politics. 

^ E.g., Esmein, Nouvelle Revue historique, 1890, pp. 821 ff . For a refutation, cf. 
Poehlmann, op. cit., ist ed., pp. 20 ff.; Guiraud, op. cit., p. 37; Souchon, op. cit., 
PP- 135 f- 

3 For a refutation of the common error, cf. Zeller, op. cit., I, i, 317, n. i, and 318, 
n. 2; Guiraud, op. cit., pp. 574 f. and 7-11; Souchon, op. cit., pp. 136-39 and notes. 
The earliest witnesses for Pythagorean communism, Epicurus, in Diog. L. x. 2, and 
Timaeus of Tauromenium, ibid., viii. 10 are remote from his time and untrustworthy. 
The later writers (Diog. L. viii. 10; Aul. Gell. i. 9. 12; Hippolytus Refiit. i. 2. 12; 
Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 20; Jamblichus De Pyth. vit. 30, 72, 168, 257, etc.; Photius, under 
KOivd) quoted, and made the tradition general. The older writers know nothing of 
the tradition. Moreover, some passages give evidence of private property among 
the Pythagoreans (Diog. L. viii. i. 15, 39). The origin of the tradition has been 
plausibly assigned to a misunderstanding of the proverb Koiva rd tQv <pl\uv, and to 
the doctrine of moral helpfulness among the Pythagoreans. S. Cognetti de Martiis 
(op. cit., pp. 459ff.) calls it socialismo cenobito. 

* Pol. ii. 8. Hippodamas the Pythagorean, cited by Stob. Flor. xliii (xli). 92 f., 
should not be confused with him. The former wrote in the Dorian dialect, and 
differs materially in his ideas. His three classes are rulers, soldiers, and all laborers, 
including merchants and farmers. He says nothing of the division of the land or who 
shall own it, but provides that the third class furnish a living to the rest. But cf. 
Robin, op. cit., p. 228, n. i, who identifies them. 



PLATO 53 

thousand citizens into artisans, farmers, and soldiers/ He makes 
a corresponding triple division of the land — sacred, to provide for 
the expense of worship; public, for the support of the soldiers; 
private, to be owned and worked by the husbandmen.^ Thus 
only the farmers are to own land, and the question as to who shall 
work the land for the military class is left in obscurity.^ It seems 
Ukely that Hippodamas intended that the farmers should work 
all the land, and own one-third of it for their own support. His 
system contains some communistic elements, as the fact that two- 
thirds of the land is public, but it is certainly not socialistic 
in spirit and purpose. The prime interest of Hippodamas was 
very probably not in a system to supplant private property, but 
rather in a plan of assured support for the priestly and military 
classes."* 

Phaleas of Chalcedon, according to Aristotle's description, 
approaches much nearer to the modern socialistic idea.^ Aristotle 
makes him a type of those thinkers who lay chief stress on the 
right system of property as the necessary basis of civic peace.^ 
His central tenet is equality of possessions and of education for all 
the citizens,^ but he seems to have specified only landed property.^ 
This demand, though only landed property is included, seems to 
strike a truly modern socialistic note. But nowhere better than 
here may we see the gulf that separates ancient and modern social- 
ism. The avowed interest of Phaleas is not in the masses. The 
artisans are all to be public slaves.' His interest is rather in the 
classes, and not even in these primarily, but rather in the state 

^ Pol. 1267&31-33. Cf. Comford's visionary article (Class. Quart., VI [1912], 
246 ff.), in which he seeks to prove that the tripartite psychology of Plato's Republic 
is an inference from this triple division of society. Cf. a similar idea of Pohlenz, 
Aus Plato's Werdeseit (1913), pp. 229 ff. 

2 ii. 8. 1267633-36. 3 1268034 ff. 

* So Souchon, op. cit., p. 141, who makes him an individualist. 
^ Pol. ii. 7. ^ 1266037 f. 

'1266040: (^Tjffl yap deiv (<Tas elvat rds /cTiJcretj tup ttoXltuv; 1266&31-33, to be 
realized in an old state, partly by allowing only the rich to give dowries and only the 
poor to receive them; 126662-4. 

* Ar. (1267610) criticizes him for this. 

' 1267615; cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 7 f. 



54 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

itself. His entire system has for its fundamental motive the 
avoiding of civic discord in the state.^ 

The ideal state of Plato's Republic has often been presented 
by socialists and other modern writers as the great prototype of 
all socialistic doctrine. We must consider to what extent such a 
view is justified. In his famous myth of the three metals, Plato 
divides his citizens into three classes — rulers, auxiliaries, and 
farmers and artisans.^ His avowed purpose here, as indeed 
throughout his Republic, is to secure the highest degree of happi- 
ness for all the citizens.^ In order to gain this end, he provides 
for a most thoroughgoing system of communism, including all 
property, both for production and for consumption, except such 
as is necessary for the immediate need.'' He extends it even to the 
common possession of wives and children ,5 that all private inter- 
ests may be reduced to a minimum.'^ He provides further for 
a common work' and education^ for men and women. 

Such, in brief, is the system proposed in the Republic.^ Super- 
ficially considered, it would seem to be the parent of modern 
socialism and communism. There is, however, actually but slight 
similarity between them. The so-called communism of Plato 
extends only to the first two classes, which can include but a small 
minority of the citizenship." Thus the masses, with whom modern 

' 1266037 f.; 126701 f. Aristotle's account of these writers, as of Plato, is 
incomplete and unsatisfactory. 

^ Rep. 415A; cf. above, pp. 48 ff. on this and the following note. ^ 420B-C. 

^4i6D-E, 4S8C; cf. also Critias 112B-C, where common houses, common meals, 
and the prohibition of gold and silver are presented as an ideal. 

5457D. 6462B-C. 

7 451D-45SD. Poehlmann points to this doctrine of the Ebenbiirtigkeii of women 
as an advanced ground even for Christianity. 

«45iE. 

» Guiraud (La Prop, f one, p. 578) distinguishes these elements in Plato's system, 
Republic and Laws: exclusive right of property vested in the state; use of land granted 
to a part of the citizens; distribution of the product among all the citizens; obliga- 
tion to work, tempered by equality of service; inequality of classes, and equality of 
men in each class; heredity of profession, corrected by selection of talents. 

" Cf . pp. 48 f . and notes. Even Aristotle admits (i 264033) that Plato makes his hus- 
bandmen absolute owners of their lots, on condition of paying rental. The rulers alone 
(/iicois) are to keep themselves from silver or gold (41 7A). Cf. Book IV, beg.: oTov &W01 



PLATO 55 

socialism is especially concerned, are not directly touched by his- 
system. Again, the primary motive of Plato's communism is not 
the modern motive at all. His thought is not to secure a just share 
for all in the products of industry. Though he recognizes the 
importance of providing against the evils of extremes of wealth 
and poverty ,' the motive is not the material interest of any class. 
It is an intense desire for unity and for escape from civic strife in 
the state," for provision against graft, corruption, and tyranny 
in the rulers,^ and for insuring as efficient work as possible."* Like 
Ruskin, Plato is no democrat. Equality is not in his thought.^ 
Unlike many a modern socialist, he realizes that absolute arith- 
metical equahty is impossible, and that if gained it would be the 
greatest injustice. He knows that the true equality must be 
proportional, demanding not that each receive exactly the same, 

iypois re KeKT-rjfji^voL /cat oldas olKoSoiMifievoi, etc.; 420A, 416D-E, 4S8C, 464B-D, where 
the community is applied to the guards only, and 464A-D, where the same is true 
of family communism. Doubtless he would have extended it farther, had he thought it 
feasible (462B-C), but Poehhnann {op. cit., I, 569 f.; II, 96 f.) overemphasizes this 
demand of Plato. Adler (Geschichte des Socialismus und Kommunismus von Plato 
his zur Gegenwart, p. 44), DuBois (op. cit., p. 40), Oncken {op. cit., p. 34), Souchon 
{op. cit., 148); Malon {op. cit., pp. 90 f.), Shorey {Class. Phil., October, 1914, art. 
on "Plato's Laws") all agree with the foregoing conclusion. Francotte {L'Industrie, 
II, 258 ff.) leaves the question open, but (261 f.) observes that the third class is at 
least restrained from extremes of wealth and poverty. 
' 421D, 421E-422E. 

^Ibid., the fundamental idea of the Republic. L. Stein {Sociale Frage, p. 164) 
rightly says: "Denn der Kommunismus Platons ist seinem Schoepfer nicht Zweck, 
sondern blosses paedagogisches Mittel." 

3 415E-416A, 417B, 420D, 421A, 421C. He would also avoid vulgarization of 
the rulers through trade (416E-417A). 
4421D. 

5 Ruskin thinks that inequality of possessions, in itself, does not necessarily 
mean either evil or good for a nation {Unto This Last, II, 31 [Vol. XVII, 46 f-]); he 
argues that each is born with an absolutely limited capacity, and calls the idea of 
natural equality of men "radical blockheadism " {Fors Clav., VIII, Letter 95, 6 
[Vol. XXIX, 496]); cf. Unto This Last, III, 54 (Vol. XVII, 74); Modern Painters, 
III, Pt. IV, chap. X, 22 (Vol. Ill, 189) ; Seven Lamps of Architecture, IV, 28 (Vol. VIII, 
167); Fors Clav., II, Letter 14, 4 and note (Vol. XXVII, 248); Stones of Venice, 
III, 4 (Vol. XI, 260), all of which emphasize its impossibility. He strongly opposes 
sociaUsm, cf. above, and Mun. Pul., 21 (Vol. XVII, 144), though his economic ideas 
contained essentially the germ of modern socialistic doctrine. 



56 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

but that each receive his due/ His third class, comprising a large 
majority of the citizens, is practically without political activity, 
a fact in marked contrast to the modern social-democratic spirit. 
His emphasis is not economic and material, as is that of modern 
socialism, but political and moral.^ 

In fine, the Republic contains some sociaHstic elements. Plato's 
restriction of the freedom of the individual so as to subserve the 
interest of the whole,^ his tendency to magnify the power of law 
in the face of economic principles and of human nature,'' his interest 
in the welfare of the common people, his declaration against inequal- 
ity of fortune, his denial of the right of private property for the 
upper classes, and his proposed community of wives and children, 
a measure too radical for the better type of modern socialism,^ 
all seem socialistic in trend. 

The tendency to magnify the power of law, and the submission 
of individual to state interest, however, were characteristics of 
Greek civilization, and not distinctly Platonic or socialistic. His 
interest in the welfare of the masses, as we have seen, was not 
primarily economic, but had for its ulterior motive the preser- 
vation of the peace of the state. His denial of private property 
and family interests to the guards, and his opposition to extreme 
wealth or poverty were, as seen above, devoid of socialistic motive. 
Moreover, in his hostility to retail trade, he was not moved by 

' Cf. his ironical criticism of democratic equality in Athens, S58C: Iffbr-nrd nva 
ofwlus icrois T€ Koi dviffoit diav^iiovaa; Laws 757B-D, 744B-C; cf. infra for Aris- 
totle's idea. Cf. p. 61, n. i for further notice of these passages. 

^ Poehlmann (op. ciL, I, 553, n. 3) is extreme in asserting that Plato's account 
of the growth of the proletariat, and the rise of class struggles (Book VIII) contains 
"alle wesentlichen Ziige des Bildes, welches die moderne Plutokratie gewahrt," and 
(560), "Das vierte Jahrhundert v. Chr. hat uns den Kampf vorgekampft in welchem 
wir selbst mittenhineinstehen." 

3 Pohlenz (op. cit., p. 240) makes his socialism a reaction against the individualism 
of Pericles, but makes the extreme assertion: "Die Grundlage auf der Plato seinen 
Idealstaat aufbaut, ist der strengste Socialismus." 

"t Cf. p. 43, n. 10. He evidently recognizes his ideas on the family and on the 
philosopher-king as Utopian; cf. also 425D-E; but Poehlmann {op. cit., II, 144-52) 
opposes this view. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., October, 1914, pp. 357 f., on the idea of 
law in the Laws and Politics. 

s When advocated, it has not been with the lofty motive of Plato. 



PLATO 57 

the modern socialistic demand for immediate contact between 
producer and consumer. The conditions that called forth such 
a demand were not then in existence/ as is also true of the modern 
agitation for a proper distribution of the profits of industry. 
Above all, Plato made no pretense to any economic basis for his 
communism, but presented it as a moral and political ideal. The 
Republic cannot therefore be classified as truly socialistic either in 
motive or in general plan.^ 

In any event, there is nothing in common between the high 
moral idealism of Plato's so-called communism and the crass 
materialistic communism that is the subject of Aristophanes* 
satire in the Ecclesiazusae. DietzeP has well pointed out that the 
latter is extremely individualistic, atheistic, and immoral, demand- 
ing all from the state with no return; that the Republic, on the 
other hand, demands the loftiest morality and renunciation, and 
is a direct protest against such tendencies in Athens as are attacked 
by the comic poet. As he shows, the two are as far apart as are 
the watchwords, "All for self," and "All for all." 

' Poehlmann {op. cit., I, 579, 598) admits this. Guiraud (La Prop, fonc, p. 594) 
points out that the analogy with modem socialism is difficult, owing to the modern 
abolition of slavery, great extent of states, and large increase in personal property. 

' So Souchon, op. cit., pp. 145 ff.; Guiraud {La Prop, fonc, p. 638) well says: 
"Si ces derniers [modern socialists] reussissaient a appliquer leurs projects, les societes 
qui sortiraient de leurs mains n'auraient pas la moindre ressemblance avec la societe 
hellenique." Cf. also ibid., p. 594, where he distinguishes between Plato and modern 
socialists. Francotte {L'Industrie, II, 250, n. i) makes the Republic essentially 
socialistic, though he admits that it has not the modern aim (p. 255). Poehlmann 
{op. cit., II, 123-43) makes it a "Koinzidenz der beiden Prinzipieen" (p. 143). Wolf 
{Gesch. d. Ant. Kommun. u. Individ., p. 96) distinguishes Plato's two aims as a strong 
community spirit, and a strong central authority, devoid of selfish interest. Cf. 
S. Cognetti de Martiis, op. cit., pp. 524-89, on the Socialismo filosofico of the Republic. 

3 Vierteljahrschrift f. Staats u. Volkswirtschaft, I, 375 ff. Of course Aristophanes 
may have caricatured Plato as he did Socrates in the Clouds. However, since both 
were opposed to extreme individualism, and since the comedy was written before the 
Republic, it is improbable. But cf. Drumann, Arbeiter u. Communisten in Griechen- 
land u. Rom (i860), pp. 133 f., who thinks the poet was satirizing the oral discussions 
of Plato. Pohlenz {op. cit., pp. 223-28) argues for an earlier edition of the Republic, 
and states that, though the comedy is not a direct satire on the Republic, yet its 
numerous specific ideas and expressions that are similar to Plato's warrant the 
conclusion that the poet followed Plato. Cf. also S. Cognetti de Martiis, op. cit., 
pp. 541-61, on the relation of the two. 



58 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Plato's idea that society is the exact counterpart of the indi- 
vidual in the large, however, is quite analogous to the modern 
comparison of society to an organism/ Both are wrong in attempt- 
ing to press the analogy too far, yet they contain a truth of pro- 
found importance, which is at the foundation of the marked change 
in the spirit of economics in recent years. It is the notion of 
solidarity, which demands that the individual shall no longer seek 
the content of his being in himself alone, but also in the conditions 
that shall produce the highest life for the commonwealth. 

In the Laws, Plato reluctantly abandons some of the Utopian 
suggestions of the Republic for a more practical legislation,^ though 
his ideal is really unchanged. Communism of property and of the 
family are both discarded even for the rulers, as feasible only for 
a supernatural order of beings.^ As a noble ideal, however, it still 
hovers before him.'' Private property is permitted to the citizens,^ 
but under protest, and if practicable, Plato would like to prohibit 
it, as the primary root of all social disturbance and corruption.^ 
He would advocate, therefore, a return to the old regime of family 
tenure, somewhat on the model of the Spartan system.^ He would 
also hamper this by limitations so as to make it no real ownership 
at all. The land is to be practically state property, over which the 
citizens exercise merely the right of use.* It is to be divided into 
lots of equal value, corresponding exactly to the number of citizens.' 
Natural disadvantages shall be compensated for by an increase in 
the size of the lot, and part of each allotment shall be near, and 
part at a distance from the city, that all may be on an equal footing, 

' 434D-E, and the entire plan of the Republic. Cf. Poehhnann, op. cit., I, 527 ff.; 
also II, 210 f., on Plato's idea of a pre-established harmony between individual and 
common good. 

^ Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 205 ff.) suggests that this change resulted from Plato's 
experiences with Dionysius of Syracuse, but it may be easily accounted for by the 
natural conservatism of age. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 353- 

3 739D, 740A. 4 739C-E, 807B. 5 737E, 741C 

* 831C-D, though it refers to the love of wealth, 807B, 713E. 

7 Cf. Guiraud (La Prop.fonc, pp. 582 f.; cf. infra for details. 

8 740-741A, 923A-B, a remarkable passage, which declares that they are not full 
owners either of themselves or their property, but that they belong to the whole race, 
past, present, and future {^(ifiirapros di toO yivovs vfjLwv roD re e/xirpocrdev koli tov eireira 
icro/ii^uov) , and especially to the state. 

» 737E, 745C-E. 



PLATO 59 

and alike ready to defend against invasion.^ In order that no 
citizen may lose his lot, and no man may possess more than one, 
very stringent regulations are advised.^ No lot may be purchased 
or sold,^ confiscated,"* or divided by will to more than one heir,^ 
and no citizen, in any manner whatsoever, may become owner of 
more than one lot.^ The living of the other members of the family 
is arranged for by a provision for a general distribution of the 
product of the soil, in imitation of the Cretan law.'' The annual 
product of grain and cattle shall be divided into three equal parts, 
one for citizens, one for their servants, and one for the artisans, 
metics, and strangers. The first two parts shall not be subject 
to sale, but each head of a family shall receive from them enough 
to nourish his family and slaves. 

It is evident from all these regulations that Plato's citizens 
do not actually own their lots, but merely enjoy the usufruct of 
them from the state on certain conditions. He takes away with 
one hand what he gives with the other. Under such a system all 
his precautionary measures could not have prevented the growth 
of an even more oppressive poverty, unless the growth of popu- 
lation could be checked. 

The regulations limiting the acquisition or possession of per- 
sonal property are even more stringent, though here an absolute 
equality is not attempted. He seeks, however, to prevent the 
rise of inequahty of fortunes, at the very threshold, by making 
undue acquisition difficult or even impossible for the citizens. All 
money-making occupations are practically closed to them* — ^trade,' 
the mechanical arts,'" and even agriculture, so far as their own per- 
sonal work is concerned. The latter is given over to slaves," the 
arts and trade to ahens, with strict limitations to be enforced by 
the officers of the market.^^ As seen above, two-thirds of the farm 
products are not to be subject to commercial dealings.^'' The 
loan of money at interest is forbidden, and he who disobeys will 

' 74SC-E. ^ 740B. 3 741B-C. ^ 74SA, 855A-B, 754E-755A, 744E. 

s 740B, 923C. If the family is large, the women are to be married off, and the 
men adopted by the childless (740C). Personal property may be willed to the other 
children (923D); cf. also above, pp. 45 f. and notes. 

« 740C, 741B-D. 8 741E. " 846D, 847A, 919D. 

7 847E-848C. 9 847D, 919D. " 806E. 

" 920A; cf. above, on exchange. '^ 849C. 



6o GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

risk the loss of both principal and interest/ A bulky coinage of 
baser metal is provided for the daily use of private citizens, such 
as will not pass current in another country.^ No dowries are to be 
given or received/ and there shall be no hoarding, but the entire 
produce of the lots must be annually distributed for consumption 
among the whole population of the state.'' To make assurance 
doubly sure, Plato prohibits his citizens from owning personal 
property above four times the value of the lot,s or four minas.^ 
Any amount in excess of this must be handed over to the state on 
pain of severe fine for disobedience.'' This is to be accomplished 
by the regulation that all property except the lot must be publicly 
registered, and failure to fulfil this obligation entails the loss of 
all but the original lot, and pubhc disgrace.^ 

In all this drastic Hmitation of property rights, Plato's chief 
motive is to render excessive wealth or poverty impossible,' and 
to harmonize the citizenship by reducing all inequalities to a mini- 
mum.^** This he purposes to accomplish, not merely by the fore- 
going restrictions, but also by means of a common education," 
and by the institution of the sussitia}'' He makes the road to com- 
parative equality easier than in his first state by relegating all 
the third class, the artisans, merchants, and farmers, outside the 
pale of citizenship.'^ The actual difference, however, is not so 
great as it might appear. In the Republic there is equality in the 
upper class, while in the Laws there is comparative equahty among 
the citizens who comprise only the upper class. In neither case 
is there a real equahty in the whole state. Plato is well aware 
that only approximate equality can be attained, and that differences 

' Cf . p. 39 and notes. ^ Cf . p. 40 and notes. ^ 742C. ■* Cf. p. 59 and notes. 

5 744E. The entire wealth will thus vary from the bare lot to five times its 
value. Cf. Jowett, Dialogs of Plato, 3d ed., V, 127, though the division into four 
classes might mean that the highest was only four times the lot value. Espinas 
{Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 237) accepts the former interpretation. 

' 754D-E. The value of the lot was thus only a mina. ' 744E> 745^- 

8 74SA, 754D-E (which requires it only for the excess), 75SA. Espinas (op. cit., 
pp. 118 ff.) emphasizes the ascetic tendency of his regulations. 

9 729A ff., 919B, 936B-C, against beggars. 

" 744B-E, and above notes. " Book VII. 

" 780B; women and children separate, 806E; on its Cretan origm, 625E fif. 

'3 846D, 847A, D, 919D, 806E. 



PLATO 6i 

not only in property, but also in birth, virtue, strength, and beauty, 
are bound to exist/ He would therefore have taxes and distri- 
butions unequal in the same ratio, so as to avoid dissatisfaction 
and dispute.^ The difficulties incident to such a scheme of legis- 
lation he would obviate by starting a new state in virgin soil.^ 

Souchon'' recognizes the Plato of the Laws as a true socialist, 
and points to his attempt to prevent all inequality, and to his 
extreme state intervention as characteristic elements of socialism. 
Plato certainly does approach nearer to a real socialism in the 
Laws than in the Republic. In addition to the points noted by 
Souchon, there may be observed the application of the system of 
equality to the whole citizenship, though at the cost of shutting 
out all the workers; the strong sense of the social function of 
property ;s the practical denial of real private ownership of land; 
the demand for publicity in business, which is one of the chief 
suggestions for the regulation of corporations today ;^ the active 
interest in the conservation of natural resources, which, while not 
socialistic, lies in the direction of greater social control ;7 and the 
fact that distribution of the products of industry is made practically 
a function of the state.^ The demand for equality and unity is 
also somewhat analogous to the modern socialistic hostility to 
competition, which Ruskin calls the ''law of death. "^ It may be 

' 744B; cf. pp. 55 f. on equality; cf. 757B-D, contrasting the mere arithmetical 
equality (jy]v apidnQi ta-qv), which is easily realized, and the true equality.which is very 
difficult. This latter apportions to each in accord with his nature (irphs t^v <pi<nv 
avTQv). The two are almost opposites {ivavriatv). Espinas {op. cit., p. 236) thinks 
that the division into property classes in the Laws is an attempt to realize this principle. 

^ 744B. 3 736C-D, 704. 

^ Op. cit., p. 143; cf. also pp. 163-65, where he compares it to modern collectivism; 
cf. p. 162; also Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 295. 

5 923A; cf. 877D, and much of the legislation on property, above. 

' Cf. pp. 59 f. and notes. The modern analogy is not close, yet in each case the 
aim is to prevent imdue gains whereby the pubUc is oppressed. 

7Cf. p. 30, n. 3. 

* Cf. p. 59 and notes. The socialistic tendency to overemphasize the power of 
law is also strong here as in the Republic. But cf. p. 36, n. 4, and Laws 807B, 746A-B, 
747B. 

9 Time and Tide, IX, 5-9. Modern Painters, YfTt. S, chap, i, 6 {Yol.YU, 2oy). 
Espinas {Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 246) calls this Platonic denial of 
"conflict of interest" in trade "le theme etemel de la chimera socialiste." 



62 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

added further that Plato's description of the economic strife in 
his day is slightly suggestive of the criticism of capitalism by 
modern socialism.^ However, the basal motive of Plato is, again, 
not that of modern socialism. His aim is still primarily moral and 
poHtical rather than material,^ and he exhibits less interest in the 
welfare of the laborers than he does in the Republic^ Moreover, 
his demand for equality is prompted by exactly the same motive 
as was active in the Republic, not to ameliorate the condition of the 
laborer, whom he has relegated to slavery, but to avoid the hated 
civic discord {hdaTaais) and to preserve the unity of the state/ 
The equality too, is in no sense analogous to that sought by modern 
socialism, for, as seen above, it is merely equality within a class, 
comprising the aristocratic minority of the state, and does not 
touch the working masses at all.s In fine then, though there are 
perhaps enough truly socialistic elements in the Laws to warrant 
the classification of Souchon, yet if Plato's ideal were reaHzed, it 
would be mainly a restoration of the old economic regime in Greece, 
based on agriculture and the family tenure of property. Such an 
ideal, modern sociaUsts would doubtless fail to recognize as having 
much in common with their own.*^ 

^ Laws 626E: rd iroKeniov^ eivai, wdvras irdffivi cited by Poehlmann, op. cit., 
I, 557; but he exaggerates the analogy. 

' Cf. 742D-E, 743D-E, 729A, and the remarks on retail trade, 918B-919E, 870B; 
cf. also, above, on wealth. 

3 As seen above, they are all slaves or strangers. A direct comparison is hardly 
possible, since in the Republic, the masses are the majority of the citizens, while in the 
Laws, there are none. 

4 744D; cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 363: "Plato's object, however, is not 
socialistic equalization of the 'good things' of life, but the enforced disinterestedness 
of the rulers, and the complete self-reaUzation of every type of man, in limitation to 
his own proper sphere and task." 

5 Cf. pp. 55 and 60, on equality; also note 4, above. 

^ Francotte {L'Industrie, II, 250) suggests that retatisme, "nationalism," would 
be a more applicable term for the Laws. He distinguishes this from sociaUsm, as 
being not so thoroughgoing a limitation of the individual as is the "sociaUsm" of 
the Republic. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 3S8, on the famous "communistic" 
passage in Laws 739C: &vtu^ icrrl koivo. to. 4>l\wv, etc. He calls it a "rhetorical 
exaltation of that ideal unity of civic feeling, which Demosthenes upbraids Aeschines 
for not sharing." For further communistic ideas of Plato, cf. his incomplete romantic 
story of Atlantis in the Critias. The ideal is similar to that of the larger works. Cf. 
Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 348 ff. 



CHAPTER IV 

XENOPHON 

Xenophon was a man of affairs, whose interests touched the 
practical Hfe of the world on many sides, as is evidenced by the 
broad scope of his extant works. He was also, however, a pupil 
of Socrates. In his economic thought, therefore, he vacillates 
between the positive interest of the practical economist and the 
negative criticism of the Socratics.^ On the whole, his practical 
bent dominates, and is especially exhibited in his essay on the 
Revenues of Athens j^ as also in the fact that he was the first writer 
to produce a work devoted entirely to economics .^ The spirit 
of the moral philosopher, on the other hand, is prominent wherever 
the influence of Socrates is felt, as in the first chapters of the 
Economicus and in the Memorabilia. When the Socratic ideal 
dominates, he, in common with other Greek thinkers, confuses 
economics with ethics, and private with public economy.'' He 
makes the science of economy deal with the management of pri- 
vate estates,^ and beheves with Plato and Ruskin that the same 
qualities are necessary for the successful handling of the affairs 
of either house or state .^ 

' We shall not try to distinguish between the actual ideas of Xenophon and those 
which he reports objectively as Socratic. 

=■ On the Xenophontine authorship of the Revenues, cf. Croiset, op. cit., IV, 393 
and notes; Christ, Griechische Liter atur-Geschichte, 4th ed., pp. 367 f. and notes. 
Other authorities are cited there. 

3 The oiKOPOfUKds, at least, the first extant, devoted to private economy, and 
especially agriculture, but revealing a practical interest in the details of the production 
of wealth. Cf. infra for further discussion of Economica in Greek literature. 

4 For some qualifications, cf. above. Introduction. 

^ Econ. i. 2: oIkov6im)v dyodov elvai oiKeTv rhv eavrov oIkov, cf. 3: "rbv S,X\ov d^ 
oJkov. oJkov is used of one's entire property (5). 

^Mem. iii. 4. 6; cf. further above, p. 9, n. 4. Cf. Ruskin, Pol. Econ. of Art, I, 
12: "Precisely the same laws of economy, which apply to the cultivation of a farm 
or an estate, apply to the cultivation of a province or an island." Cf. the story in 
Hdt. V. 29 on this idea. Espinas {Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], m) 
contrasts Xenophon, to whom the royal administration is a greatly expanded private 
economy, with Plato's absorption of all private economy by the state. 

63 



64 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

VALTJE 

Xenophon insists strongly on utility or serviceableness as 
a necessary quality of property {xp'^txara, KTrjiiara). By this, 
however, he means primarily, not potential utility in the object, 
but ability of the owner to use rightly.^ Even exchangeability 
does not insure value in anything, unless the seller can use to 
advantage that which he receives in return.^ This idea of value 
is true enough from the ethical standpoint, and should not be left 
out of account, as is being recognized by modern economists. But 
to attempt to build a theory of economic value on such a basis, 
as Ruskin does,^ would result in hopeless confusion. Value is not 
merely an individual and moral, but also a social and economic, 
fact. 

A hint of exchange value is given in the impHed classification 
of goods as usable or salable.'' But there is no discrimination 
between useful things in the economic and uneconomic sense. In 
the Revenues, on the other hand, when free from Socratic influence, 
Xenophon makes a positive contribution to the theory of value. 
He observes that the exchange value of goods varies with supply 
and demand, and that this law is, in a sense, self-regulative by the 

^ Econ. i. 7-15; cf. 10: tovtA dpa 6vTa rtfi fj.iv iiri<Tra.tiiv<^ xP?""^**' avTQv iKdcrroi^ 
XP'^/JMrd iffTi, rifi di fi^ eiri<TTan4v(p ov xp^MftTo. Cf. p. 23 and notes on Plato and Rus- 
kin. H. Sewall ("Theory of Value before Adam Smith," Publications of the American 
Economic Association, II, Part III, p. i) says that the conception of value {d^ia) as 
a quality inherent in the thing was not questioned, but Xenophon seems to question 
it here. As she observes, n. i, the term originally meant "weight," at first weight 
in money, as well as actual worth. 

^i. II f. 

3 Unto This Last, beginning; cf. preceding n. i; Ruskin took Xen. Econ. as the 
foundation on which he built all his own economic studies. Cf. Unto This Last, 
Pref., Vol. XVII, pp. xlix and 18; Vol. XXXI, Introd.; pp. xvff. It was the first 
in his Bib. Fastorum. Cf. his Preface to his translation of the Economicus; Arrows of 
the Chace, Vol. XXXIV, 547; Letters, II (Vol. XXXVII, 350). In Mun. Ptil., IV, 105 
(Vol. XVII, 230); also on pp. 288 and 88, he refers to Xenophon's "faultless" defini- 
tion of wealth, citing Mem. ii. 3. 7. Cf. also Vol. XXXI, pp. xvii and 27. Font- 
pertuis ("Filiation des idees economiques dans I'antiquite," Jour, des econ., September, 
187 1, p. 361) thinks this is at bottom the true theory of value. 

^ Econ. i. 2: dvodi-dofiivois fxiv ol avXol xP''7M«''^*i I^V diroSiSo/xivois S^ dXXA KeKTij- 
fjL^voLS ot, Tots fii) iiriaraix^voLs avrols xPV'^Oa.i. Brants {Xen. Econ., p. 8) overemphasizes 
this. 



XENOPHON 65 

fact that workmen tend to enter other fields of activity whenever 
any industry becomes unprofitable through an oversupply of its 
products.' 

WEALTH 

The double standpoint of Xenophon is well illustrated in his 
doctrine of wealth. On the one hand, he values it highly, and 
tries to deduce practical rules for its increase and enjoyment.^ 
On the other hand, like Socrates and Plato, he makes derogatory 
comparisons between economic and spiritual wealth.^ As in the 
case of value, he offers no clear definition of economic wealth 
(KTrj(TLs). It is defined indiscriminately as "whatever is useful 
to life," and "useful" is "everything that anyone knows how to 
use.""* But, as seen above, this is a purely subjective notion, and 
is only one element in economic wealth .^ He also defines it (xpi?- 
juara) as "the excess of goods over needs," making it a merely 
relative term:^ but here again the thought is ethical rather than 
economic, an attempt to teach the somewhat ascetic principle that 
a man's riches are measured by the paucity of his wants.'^ The 
hostile or indifferent attitude to wealth is also assumed in the com- 
parison of it with so-called mental wealth and wisdom^ and in the 
impHcation that it involves many cares.^ The idea so prominent in 
Plato, however, that the acquisition or expenditure of great wealth 

^ Rev. iv. 6-10, a remarkable passage, though he fails to include silver in the law. 
Cf. Kautz, op. cit., p. 129; Kaulla, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der modernen 
Werttheorien, p. 2. 

^ Especially in the story of Isomachus (Econ.), and the Revenues. 

3 Cf. infra; also Espinas, Histoire des doctrines economiques, p. 20. 

4 Econ. vi. 4; cf. i. 7 ff., cited above, p. 64, n. i. 

s P. 64 and notes. Biichsenschiitz (Besitz und Erwerb, p. 15) criticizes it as too 
broad, including spiritual goods; too narrow, including only what one can use. 

^ In Econ. ii. 2-8, Socrates' comparison of himself with the wealthy Critoboulos; 
Hiero iv. 6-10; Mem. iv. 2. 37 f.; i. 6. i-io, where Socrates defends his own simple 
life, especially 10: ^7<«> 5' ivSfu^ov rb fikv /xrjdevtis dei^dai OeTov eTvai. If meant in 
the economic sense, this would approach a definition of capital, as "excess of goods 
over needs." 

' Cf. p. 25, n. II, on the similar modem doctrine. 

* Symp. iii. 8 and iv. 34-44, given as the doctrine of Antisthenes, the Cynic, 
though with apparent approval; Mem. iv. 2. 9. 

» Econ. xi. 9. 



66 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

is not consistent Avith justice, is not emphasized by Xenophon. 
He calls that man happiest who has best succeeded in just acquisi- 
tion, and who uses his wealth in the best manner.^ 

PRODUCTION 

The Greeks had no specific word for production, as we have, 
since industry, though well developed, was not a dominant feature 
of Greek Hfe, and economics had not become a separate science. 
The word ipyaala, meaning "labor" or "business," served the 
purpose. The term was used of productive labor,^ of building or 
manufacturing,^ of work in raw materials,'' most commonly of 
agriculture,^ of industries in general,^ of the trades, commerce, or 
other business for money-making,' and of a guild of laborers.^ 
The term 17 ttoit^ti/ci) rix^rj, "the productive art," which approaches 
more nearly to a specific, technical expression, was also used.' 
Thus, though there is no clear-cut term for production, the state- 
ment of Zimmem'" that the Greeks had no better word for "busi- 
ness" than d<rxoXia, "lack of leisure," is hardly warranted. 

Xenophon was far more interested than Plato or Aristotle in 
the problem of practical production. His shrewd discussion of 
agriculture, and his urgent appeal to Athens to increase her revenues 
by systematic exploitation of the mines, and by the encouragement 
of industry and commerce, reveal a mind awake to economic 
advantage. Though at times he seems almost to make war and 
agriculture the only true means of production, it is evident that 
he has a Hve interest in all means of acquisition." Toward the 
theory of production, however, his contribution is not large. In 

' Cyrop. viii. 2. 23. ^ Mem. ii. 7. 7; Rev. iv. 29. 

3 Thuc. vii. 6. 2, of walls; Gorg. 449D, Itiaridiv; Theaet. 146D, wiroSTj/idrwv; Xen. 
Econ. vii. 21, iffdrjroi. 

^Hdt. i. 68; Charm. 173E; Thuc. iv. 105. ^ Ar. Frogs 1034; Isoc. Areop. 30. 

* Isoc. Areop., 146^, cited infra on the terms for capital; Ad Nicocl. 18C. 

''Mem. iii. 10. i; Dem. xxxiii. 4. » Ar. N. Eth. vi. 4, 2 ff. 

^C.I.A. 3924: 7} ipyaffla tQv ^a(f>iwv. "Op. cit., ist ed., p. 55. 

" £coM., especially chaps, v-vii; iv. 4; Mem. ii. i. 6; Econ. v. 17: e5 fj.^v y6,p 
<p€pon4vrji TTJi yeupylas eppuvrai Kal &Wai r^x*''*' diraaaL, S-rrov 5' &v avayKCKrOri ij yij 
X^pfffveiv, diroff^ivpvvTai Kal ai AWai rix""-'- o'X^^^'' '''' '^"^ Kara yrjv Kal Kara ddXarrav, 
a very true statement, which does not beUttle other industries. 



XENOPHON 67 

the Economics, he recognizes the importance of labor and natural 
resources in production, and in the Revenues, he sees the necessity 
of capital.^ But naturally, like Aristotle and the southern planter, 
he confuses capital with labor, in the person of the slave.^ The 
fable of the dog and the sheep reveals a knowledge of the machinery 
of production, and some insight into the proper relation between 
the employer and the laborer.^ Xenophon's distinct contribution 
to future economic thought, however, consists in his appreciation 
of the fact that economic production has its definite limits; that 
the same ratio of profits cannot be increased indefinitely by the 
constant addition of more labor and capital, but that these must 
be proportioned to the greatest possible return.'' To be sure, he 
does not appreciate the scientific significance of the principle. His 
purpose is rather to emphasize the danger of overproduction, and 
he even fails to grasp the necessary application of this danger to 
the silver mines. However, as the enunciator of the principle, he 
may be called the forerunner of the doctrine of diminishing returns. 
As seen above, special emphasis was laid by Xenophon upon 
natural resources as an element in production, both in land and in 
the mines. His great interest in and eulogy of agriculture as the 
basal industry, upon which all other sources of wealth depend,^ 
have caused him to be classed with the physiocrats of modern time 
but such an interpretation is hardly warranted. Without doubt, 
agriculture is, in his opinion, the supremely honorable occupation. 
It shares with war the right to be placed above all other vocations.^ 
It permits the maximum of leisure and physical development, and 
is not unworthy of the personal attention of a prince.^ It is the 

' Ibid. V. 2; iii. 15. 11, 16; Rev. i. 2 ff., etc. ^ Pol. i. 8 and 9. 

3 Mem. ii. 7. 13 f., from Socrates. Cf. infra under distribution, on this. 

* Rev. iv. 5-7; Cossa, op. cit., p. 148; Kautz, Hisioire des doctrines economiques, 
p. 127; Fontpertuis, op. cit., p. 367. 

s Econ. V. 17, cited on p. 66, n. 1 1 , perhaps the strongest statement of the economic 
importance of agriculture in Greek writers. Ruskin follows Xenophon in his high 
appreciation of agriculture. He thinks it should be largely done by the upper classes 
{Mun. PuL, 109 [Vol. XVII, 235]); cf. also Vol. VII, 341, 429; Vol. X, 201. 

^ Econ. iv. 4; cf. Rev. v and Cyrop. iii. 2. 17, which favor peace for the sake of 
economic advance. 

' Econ. iv. 8 to end of chapter, especially 21. 



68 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

most pleasant, most productive, most dignified, of callings; 
the best exercise for the athlete, the finest school for education in 
patriotism and justice, and it offers the greatest opportunity for 
the exercise of hospitality to men and reverence to gods/ Indeed, 
it is the first of all occupations for an honorable and high-minded 
man to choose.^ Here we have the highest eulogy of agriculture 
in Greek literature. It is in essence a sound statement, and offers 
a needed message for today. 

Though Xenophon recognized the practical importance of 
capital in industrial enterprises,^ he developed no theory of it in 
his writings. He appreciated, however, the value of being able 
to keep a surplus."* The term a(f)opfiri, as used by him of the pro- 
vision of raw material for weaving, probably signified nothing 
more than it would have done to any Athenian business man of 
his time.5 The word originally meant a ''starting-point," espe- 
cially in war.*^ Later, it signified the ''means" or "resources" 
with which one begins a project,'^ especially in business. It was an 
easy step from this general business use to the meaning, "financial 
capital" of a banker.* Other terms for capital were evepya, used 
of interest-bearing capital in antithesis to apya, of goods merely 
for use;' Kapiriixa, "goods that yield a produce," as opposed to 
aToXav(7TLKa, "goods to be enjoyed,"'" which is suggestive of Mill's" 

'■Econ., V. i; 2-16; vi. 9-10; cf. Fontpertuis, op. cit., pp. 362 f. 
^ Econ. vi. 8. ^ Cf. Revenues. 

* Econ. ii. 10, -rrepiovfflav. Brants thinks {Xen. Econ., p. 13) that the theory is 
implied in his principle of sparing (Mem. ii. 7). Blanqui (op. cit., I, 81) emphasizes 
Eco7t. i. 7-15 as defining productive and unproductive wealth, but this merely dis- 
tinguishes wealth from non-wealth, from the standpoint of consumption. 

^Mem. ii. 7. 11 f. ^Thuc. i. 90. 2. 

^ Cf. n. I, although Liddell and Scott cite the passage as having the meaning of 
"capital"; Mem. iii. 12. 4, where it need mean no more than wealth; Econ. i. 1. 16; 
Dem. xxxvi. 54: irt<TTis d<popti7] iraffQv iffrl fieyLffTTj irpbs xP''1f^''^'^'-Cf-^^- Here irfcmj is 
almost called capital. Cf. p. 106, n. 3. 

* Dem. xxxvi. 11: Kalroi el ■fjv I8la rtj d(popfj.T} rovrtpT vpb% tt) rpairi^rj-^ xiv. 36; 
Lysias fr. 2. 2, p. 343, ed. Thalheim; Rev. iii. 9 and 12 and iv. 34 are also used of 
large financial undertakings; cf. Harpocration's definition; &Tav rtj 6.py6piov 5^ 
ivd'f}K7]v, acpopfiT] KaXeirai I8luis irapb. rots' At tikoU; for the term in Ar. Pol. vi. 1320035- 
1320^17 cf. infra. Cf. Isoc. Areop. 146c? for a similar passage. 

9 Dem. xxvii. 8 and 13. 
" Ar. Rhet. i. 5. 7. " Laughlin, ed., 1907, pp. 66 and 93. 



XENOPHON 69 

definition, ''that part of his possessions .... which he designs 
to employ in carrying on fresh production," and of his two kinds 
of capital, "circulating" and "fixed"; TroirjriKd, "things for 
further production," as opposed to Trpa/criKd, "things merely for 
use";^ Ke0dXaios, of capital as opposed to interest or income.^ 
The term epavos, also, since it came to mean a "contribution of 
money," was often used of a loan, and therefore approached the 
signification of "money capital."-' 

Xenophon is considerably more favorable to labor and the 
industrial life than are the other Socratics. He quotes Socrates 
with apparent approval, that to do something well is well-being, 
while he who does nothing well is neither good for anything nor 
beloved of God."* Work is far better than idleness. It produces 
more happiness, makes the laborer more temperate and just, and 
is the sine qua non for the independent life.^ This is a strong plea 
for industry, and is especially significant, since it refers primarily, 
to manufacture rather than to agriculture. The reference, how- 
ever, is to women workers, whose loss of leisure would not be an 
injury to the state. Each person is encouraged to provide for 
himself, and to do his work in the best possible manner,** and the 
maxim of Epicharmus, "For labor, the gods sell all goods to us," 
is heartily approved.' All the foregoing passages are Hesiodic in 
their insistence upon the value of industry.^ But apart from his 
evident acceptance of the doctrine of Socrates, as quoted above, 
Xenophon exhibits a positive interest in labor. His attitude 

' Ar. Pol. 125401 ff.; cf. infra on Aristotle ("Production"); pseudo-Ar. Econ. ii. 
13466 14. 

" Plato Laws 742C; Dem. xxvii. 75. 

3 Lycurg., p. 150, 22: rois ipdvovs dieveyKeiv; Dem. xxi. 184 f.; cf. Dem. lix. 8 
for the interesting figurative use, rbv avrbv %pavov airobodvai, "to pay him in his own 
coin"; also Lycurg., p. 168, 143. 

*Mem. iii. 9. 14 f.; cf. Brants, Xen. Econ., p. 10, for passages on Xenophon's 
attitude to labor. 

s Mem. ii. 7. 7 f. Guiraud {La Main-d'ceuvre indust., p. 46) thinks that this 
passage is a good commentary on Pericles' oration (Thuc. ii). Both see in labor, not 
an inevitable evil, but a good. Guiraud holds that this was the general attitude in 
Athens. Cf. this chapter, pp. 36-50, on "Opinions des Grecs sur le travail." 

^ Mem. ii. 8. 1-5. '' ii. i. 20. 

* Cf. Doring, Die Lehre des Socrates als soziales Reform-System, pp. 387 ff. 



70 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

toward the advancement of industry and commerce is thoroughly- 
modern, except that he does not contemplate the employment of 
free citizen labor.^ He emphasizes labor almost as strongly as 
natural resources as an important factor in production. He believes 
also that industrial thrift and prosperity are the best means of 
realizing a more quiet and orderly state .^ 

Even the practical Xenophon, however, is not free from the 
moral-aristocratic prejudice against mechanical arts {^avavaLKai) 
for the better class of citizens. He admits that they are justly 
spoken against, and held in ill-repute, since they tend to weaken 
the laborer both in body and in soul.^ The artisans have no leisure 
to give either to their friends or to the state, and in a warlike state 
the citizens cannot be thus employed.'' The artisan is also servile 
because of his ignorance of the higher moral sentiments {to, koXcl 
Kai &ya6a Kal Skaia).^ All this sounds like Plato, but Xenophon 
differs, in that he is in no wise opposed to the unlimited develop- 
ment of industry and commerce, provided the drudgery of it may 
be done by non-citizens. 

The principle of the division of labor is clearly stated by him, 
but here again he differs from Plato in that his prime interest is 
practical and economic rather than moral. He presents it as the 
reason why royal dishes are superior in flavor to others, and makes 
the acute observation that the division of labor is not so fully 
applied in the small city, because there are not enough consumers 
to support a man in one trade. In the large city, on the other 
hand, the consumers are so numerous that even the trades them- 
selves are divided and subdivided. Thus much greater skill is 
developed, and better results reahzed, for he who spends his time 
in work of the narrowest compass (/Spaxy-rarco) must accomphsh 
this in the best manner.^ He does not specify the advantages of 
the division of labor to industry, except that it results in greater 

' Rev., especially i. 2 ff. and iv; Econ. v. 2; iii. 15; ii. 16; Kautz, op. cit., p. 126. 
But cf., on the other hand, Xen. Laced. Pol. on the restrictions in Sparta against 
acquisition of wealth by trade and arts; cf. also (Xen.). Rep. Ath. ii. 11 ff. 

^ Rev. iv. 51. 

3 Econ. iv. 2; vi. 5-7; agriculture and war are not included. 

•• iv. 3. 5 Mem. iv. 2. 22. 

' Cyrop. viii. 2. 5 f.; cf. also ii. i. 21, of military labor. 



XENOPHON 71 

skill, but he reveals especial insight in stating so clearly the rela- 
tion of the market to the development of the principle/ In this, 
he is the forerunner of Adam Smith, who observes that a minute 
division of trades cannot exist except in the larger cities, especially 
in coast and river towns.^ The assertion of Haney,^ that the 
Greeks referred only to a "simple separation of employments," is 
certainly unwarranted in the light of this passage, for Xenophon 
expressly distinguishes here the simple from the more complex 
subdivision. He says that some are employed on men's shoes, 
others on women's; some do the sewing {v€vpoppa(f)ojv), others do 
the cutting (axi-t^v)} ^.nd that the same also is true in the manu- 
facture of clothing.'' This passage is also an evidence that the 
development of industry in fourth-century Athens must have been 
extensive. Xenophon also, Hke Plato, observed the fact that the 
diversity in the natures of men is the basis for the division of 
labor ,5 though he did not follow him in his doctrine that men and 
women should have the same work.^ 

UnUke Plato, the idealist, Xenophon, the practical man of 
affairs, takes the institution of slavery for granted, seemingly 
unconscious of any ethical or economic problems involved.'' How- 
ever, as a matter of common-sense, he advises that slaves be 
treated with consideration. He would give them a proper degree 
of liberty,^ and arouse them to do their best' by a fair system of 
rewards and punishments. In the case of those slaves who hold 
positions of trust, he advises that their affections should be won 
by kindly treatment, and even by making them sharers in the 
prosperity of the household.'" Slavery is, of course, a condition 
most irksome to the free-born. The unfortunate Eutheros would 
almost prefer starvation." 

' Cf. p. 70. =" Op. at., 1, iii. 

3 op. cit., p. 40; cf. also Diihring, Kritische Geschichte der Nationalokonomie und 
des Socialismus, p. 22. 

■» Cyrop. viii. 2. 5 f., cited above. ^ Econ. iii. 4; v. 16; ix. 11; xiii; Rev. iv. 17 ff. 

s Mem. iii. 9. 3. * Econ. iii. 4. 

^ Econ. viii. 'v. 16; xiii. 

" Econ. ix. 11; cf. p. 38, n. 4, on the actual status of slaves at Athens. 

" Mem. ii. 8.4.. 



72 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

MONEY 

In his treatise on the Revenues oj Athens, Xenophon shows some 
appreciation of the theory of money. He appears to take for 
granted that money must have intrinsic value. At least, he under- 
stands that silver is a commodity whose value is affected by its 
use as such, as well as by its employment for currency.^ He also 
apprehends the value of a silver currency for international com- 
merce.^ His naively enthusiastic argument for the indefinite, 
increase of the stock of silver, however, is suggestive of the mer- 
cantile fallacy, which identified money with wealth.^ But perhaps 
he is merely using for practical purposes of argument the fact that 
the Athenians were accustomed to look upon silver as the metal 
for fixed and constant value.'' In any event, he sees that the 
increase of silver must be attended by a corresponding increase in 
business activity, if its value is not to depreciate,^ and he cannot 
be accused of the error of the mercantilists, that a country is impov- 
erished by the export of money .*^ He must also have understood 
clearly the importance of stability of value in a currency, since he 
deems it necessary to show that the increased output of silver will 
not decrease its value, and that silver is the least changeable of the 
monetary metals.^ Despite his enthusiasm for his thesis, which 
causes him to exaggerate the stabiHty of silver, he does not fail 
to grasp the direct effect of supply and demand upon it,^ just as 
upon gold' and other commodities." He shows also some under- 

' Rev. iii. 2: 6irov ykp h,v ttiSKCktiv airh, iravraxoO irXeTov rov apxa^ov Xafi^dvovffiv. 

^ Ibid.; cf. Souchon, op. ciL, p. 114. 

^ Rev. iv, especially 7-12; Haney {op. cit., chap, iv) and Simey ("Economic 
Theory among the Greeks and Romans," Econojnic Review, October, 1900, p. 472) 
point to Rev. iii. 2 as distinguishing between money and wealth, but this hardly 
balances the above passage. Econ. i. 12-14 means merely that silver is not wealth 
unless properly used. 

^ So Brants, Xen. Econ., p. 21; cf. Lenormant ^ La Monnaie dans Vantiquite, I, 
179; III, 3. 

s Rev. iv. 8. 

^ Rev. iii. 4; v. 3; iii. 2; cf. Ingram, History of Political Economy, p. 15; Kautz, 
op. cit., p. 129; Roscher, p. 12. 

^IJct. iv. 5-11. *iii. 2; and iv. The demand will increase with the supply. 

' iv. 10: xP^'^^ov STav troXii irapa(pavy, avrb fiiv dri/xdrepov ylyverai, rb di dpyipiov 
rifiLUTepov iroieT, 

" iv. 5-7. 



XENOPHON 73 

standing of the quantitative theory of the relation between gold 
and silver.^ It need hardly be added that, in strong contrast to 
Plato, his attitude toward the precious metals, especially silver, 
is very favorable.^ 

EXCHANGE 

Xenophon presents no theory of exchange,^ though he is frankly 
interested in the advance of commerce and trade. In his opinion, 
the greater their development, the better it is for the city of Athens/ 
He is full of practical suggestions to stimulate commercial activity.^ 
So assured is he of the prime importance of extensive commerce to 
a nation, that, in the spirit of modern commercialism, he insists 
upon the necessity of peace for its sake/ To his mind, increased 
trade means not only material advantage, but social and political 
as well, in that greater prosperity, more labor, and a better distri- 
bution will mean greater satisfaction, and hence less danger of 
revolution in the stated He entertains none of the prejudice of 
the other Socratics against the money-makers' art, a fact which 
may well be a warning against the too ready acceptance of their 
attitude as the usual verdict of the Athenian citizens.^ In his 
practical suggestions for the development of commerce there is 
a hint of the protective principle. He advises that certain advan- 
tages be granted to shipowners so as to induce them to increase their 
shipping.' But the purpose is not to limit the advantage to 
Athenian merchantmen, nor to restrict import trade. It is rather 
the opposite. He would enrich the city by tribute on both imports 
and exports, imposed for sumptuary and revenue purposes,^" and 

' iv. lo. 

^ iv, especially 7-9, 11; he has no word against them. Lac. Pol. vii shows that 
he favors their free use. 

3 Brants {Xen. Econ., pp. 17 f.) says that he grasped both bases of exchange, 
division of labor, and natural diversity of products, but he bases it on Rep. Ath. ii. 
12. 3. 

'* Rev. iii., especially 5; Hiero ix. 9; ifiirdpia wcp^Xei ir6\iv. 

siii. 3. 4. 12 f. ^iii. 4; v-vi. Wi. i. 

^ Eco7i. ii. 18: xPV/J^"''''^''"'"^^; cf. iii, where Socrates teaches the art. Cf. above, 
p. 17, on the Sophists' attitude. 

^ Rev. iii. 4. "iii, 5. 



74 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

would also develop a public merchant-marine for rent to merchants, 
as a further source of income/ 

POPULATION 

In antithesis to Plato and Aristotle, the problem of population 
has no difficulties for Xenophon. He does not deem it advisable 
to set a hmit on the population of the state. On the contrary, he 
conceives it as one of the advantages of his plan in the Revenues, 
that thereby the city would become very populous, and thus land 
about the mines would soon be as valuable as that in the city 
itself-^* 

DISTRIBUTION 

Xenophon is far less concerned about the problem of distri- 
bution than Plato. He has no suggestions as to wages, profits, or 
prices, no ideal state where an equitable distribution shall be real- 
ized, no yearnings after equahty, or complaints against the evils of 
extreme wealth or poverty. Like Plato, he would avoid civic 
discord in the state ,^ but by the increase of production and exchange 
rather than by their limitation. In Socrates' parable of the dog 
and the sheep, he presents a suggestion of a theory of profits, but 
his plea is for the employer instead of the laborer. The right of 
the former to share in the profits of the business is based on his 
service as overseer of the work, and as protector of the workmen.'* 

Our author does not definitely reveal his attitude toward the 
poorer masses, but it seems probable that he had little interest 
in them, except in so far as their condition might affect the fortunes 
of the state. He was, of course, opposed to giving them full 
political rights, 5 and would probably have preferred a system such 
as that in Plato's Laws, where all free citizens have sufficient 
income so that they can give their time largely to the state, and 

' iii. 14. ^ iv. 50. 3 Rev. vi. i. 

* Mem. ii. 7. 12-14. Poehlmann's attempt to turn the argument about, so as to 
favor the laborer, is strained {op. cit., I, 288), though the passage may be a sidelight 
on the economic conditions in early fourth-century Athens. Cf. Mem. ii. 8. 4-5, 
where, as Poehlmann {op. cit., I, 286 f.) points out, the free laborer was coming to feel 
himself to be on the same status with the slave. 

5 Cf. e.g., his opposition to the free democracy of Athens, for evidence of which 
we do not need to depend upon the Ath. Pol. 



XENOPHON 75 

where all laborers are slaves. He did not think of suggesting that 
the poorer citizens work in the mines, or even that aliens do so, 
but suggested rather that each citizen have the income from three 
state slaves/ 

While Xenophon is not usually considered among the sociaHsts 
of Greece, he approaches perhaps even nearer than Plato to one 
phase of modern sociaHsm. Like Plato, he opposes the extreme 
individualism of the pohtical and private Hfe of his day.^ He also 
reveals the Greek feehng of the social obligation of private property.^ 
Again, as do Plato and modern sociaHsts, he magnifies the power 
of law to transform economic or social conditions/ But in advo- 
cating the modern doctrine of the socialization of industry, with 
an economic, and not a moral or pohtical, motive, he has advanced 
beyond either Plato or Aristotle, and approaches modem socialism.^ 
As seen above, however, his economic motive is not interest in the 
welfare of the masses, for by his scheme they would all be slaves. 
He desires only to abolish poverty among the citizens.^ He would 
have the state become entrepreneur, not merely in one, but in 
many branches of industry. State merchant shipping,^ pubhc 
ownership of slaves,^ public exploitation of the mines,' pubhc 
buildings near the mines, for rental to strangers,^" are all in his plan. 
The rich must finance the scheme, but their profit will be i8, 36, 
or even 200 per cent." Companies are to be organized so as to 
obviate individual risk." Thus will poverty be no more, plenty 

' Rev. iv. 17; cf. p. 70; but p. 69 might point the other way. 

^ Mem. iv. 4. 16; &v€v di ofiovolas oyr' civ 7r6\is e5 iroKiTevdel-q our' oT/cos koKus, 
olKrjdelt]. 

^Econ. xi. 9, 13. 

1 Cf. how naively he takes for granted the feasibility of his schemes in the Rev- 
enues. Cf. the opening sentence of the work, "As are the governors [TrpocrrdTat], so 
are the governments [iroXtrelas] "cited by Poehlmann {op. ciL, I, 299) as the illusion 
of socialism; but it might easily be expressed by a conservative. Plato {Rep. 544D) 
expresses a similar idea. 

s Rev. iii and iv. 

* iv. 33. The mines were already publicly owned, for the most part, but they were 
privately worked. Cf. Ardaillon, Les Mines du Laurion dans Vantiquite (Paris, 1897). 

7 iii. 14. 9 iv. " iii. 9 f . 

8iv. 17. "iv. 49. ^^iv. 30-32. 



76 * GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

for all will reign, and there will be an era of prosperity and security 
for the state.^ 

His thesis is, in a word, that what private capital can accompHsh 
for the enrichment of itself alone, state capital can accompHsh to 
better advantage for the enrichment of the whole citizenship,^ 
a doctrine which strikes a truly modem sociahstic note. 

I iv, 33; 49-52; vi. I. Cf. the excellent resume of the whole plan by Poehlmann 
{pp. cit., I, 299 fF.), though he reads into it too much of the modern socialistic spirit; 
e. g., 306-8, he makes it an example of the so-called psychological necessity by which 
socialism develops out of capitaUsm. 

' Cf. especially iv. 14: ttis ixivr 01 irdXeus irdvv i^iov Oavfidaai rb aicrdavofUvtjv 
iroXXoi)s vXovTi^on^vovi e| avr^s IdtdfTas /xr} fiifieiaGai Toirovs. 



CHAPTER V 
THE ORATORS— DEMOSTHENES, ISOCRATES 

Though the Attic orators constitute a very important source 
for our knowledge of economic conditions in Athens, they furnish 
but little definite material for a history of Greek economic thought. 
From the standpoint of theory, their chief value consists in the 
fact that they all reveal a positive interest in wealth and all the 
phenomena of practical economy. In this respect, they present 
a striking contrast to the negative attitude of the Socratics, and 
thus serve to correct our conception of the economic ideas of the 
average Athenian citizen. Specific consideration need be given 
only to Demosthenes and Isocrates. 

The positive interest of Demosthenes in commerce and finance 
has already been indicated by some passages,^ and this fact is so 
evident throughout ail his orations that further citations are 
unnecessary. Instead, we may note briefly some slight hints in 
him of the negative moral attitude of the philosophers. He 
emphasizes the dominating influence of money in warping the 
judgments of men.^ He praises the simple life of the previous 
generation, and criticizes in contrast the private luxury of his own 
day.^ According to him, it is considered to be rare for a business 
man to be both diligent {(juXepyov) and honest {xp'n(Jrbv) .'* In his 
assertion that poverty compels freemen to turn to menial work 
{bovKiKo) and that many freewomen {aarai) have been driven by 
the stress of the times to such vocations,^ some aristocratic preju- 
dice against common labor seems to be implied. A similar attitude 
toward traders and money-dealers is at least suggested by his 
question as to what is the worst {Tov-qpoTarov) element in the 

' E.g., p. io6, n. 3, citing Or. xxxvi. 44 on Trlans. 

'Peace 12, though the emphasis is on bribery. 

^Olynth. iii. 25 f.; Cont. Aristoc. xxiii. 207 f.; Or. xiii. 29 f. (Dem.), though the 
emphasis in all is upon patriotism. In these passages, he idealizes the past in the 
manner of Isocrates; cf. injra, p . 143, n. 8. 

■f Or. xxxvi. 44, For Phormio. s Or. Ivii. 45. 

77 



78 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

state.^ His scornful mention of Stephanus as one who loans money 
at interest, and takes advantage of another's need,"" is a sKght 
reminder of the philosophic prejudice against interest, though here he 
is doubtless emphasizing loans for consumption merely, at an exorbi- 
tant rate.^ But these traces of the Socratic attitude toward wealth 
are of very Httle significance, in the face of the evident economic 
interest that characterizes all the orations of Demosthenes. 

Isocrates may, in a sense, be reckoned among the Socratics, 
and he exhibits more of their spirit in relation to wealth than do 
any of the other orators. He would have men strive for honest 
character rather than for wealth, since it is not always gain to 
acquire and loss to spend. The result depends rather upon the 
occasion and virtue.'' Noble character is of more value than great 
riches,^ for good reputation is not purchasable {uvTjTrj) with money, 
but is itself the source of material possessions, and it is immortal, 
while wealth is only temporal.^ Material and spiritual wealth are 
thus contrasted in true Socratic manner ;7 right use is emphasized,^ 
and the common insatiety and injustice of money-makers is 
opposed.^ Folly and license are named as the usual accompani- 
ments of wealth, in contrast to the moderation that characterizes 
the poor and lowly.'" But, like Plato, Isocrates considers neither 
luxury nor penury to be the ideal condition," and clearly appre- 
ciates the evil effect of poverty in arousing discontent and civic 
strife in the state." 

' Cont. Aristoc. 146; Cont. Aristog. xxv. 46, his scornful figurative use of the term 

KttTTIjXoS. 

^ Cont. Steph. i. 70: dXXd tokI^osv koI tAj tCjv dWwv (TVfj.<popas Kal xpe'ds evrvx'^- 
Hara <ravTov vofil^uv. 

3 Olynth. i. 15, referring to those who borrow money at high interest, and thus lose 
their property, may also be noted. Cf. pp. 105 f. and notes. 

t Nicocl. 3. 50, against injustice in money-making. s Ibid. 59. 

^ Cont. Nicocl. (2). 32; Peace 32; cf. p. 26, n. i, for Plato's idea. 

' Cf. also Paneg. 76. * Cont. Nicocl. (2). 4. 

9 Peace 7; moderation in money-making is most difficult for most men; cf. also 
34 and 93 f. 

^° Areop. 4. "Cont. Nicocl. 2; Panath. 184. 

" Areop. 51, Ss> 83; vDv 5^ irXtlovs eialv oi a-iravl^ovrei tQp ix^^''''^^^ a striking 
commentary on the economic conditions in the Athens of his day. In 44, poverty is 
called a source of crime. All these passages idealize the past. 



THE ORATORS-DEMOSTHENES; ISOCRATES 79 

But despite this moraHzing tendency, he agrees with the other 
orators in appreciating highly the economic importance of the 
manual arts.^ He points also, with apparent pride, to the exten- 
sive commerce of Athens as compared with, that of other states,^ 
and one of his chief arguments for peace is that thereby the city 
will be filled with merchants and strangers and metics.^ This 
entire plea for peace, which he bases so largely on economic advan- 
tage, has a decidedly modern ring. He understood well the impor- 
tance of industrial development in the general prosperity of a 
democracy. In almost AristoteHan language, he pictures how in 
the good old days the rich were accustomed to give the poor a start 
in business (d0opMi7), either in agriculture, trade, or the arts/ 
This positive economic interest is further evidenced by his emphasis 
upon the increased skill that results from the appHcation of the 

division of labor .^ 

Isocrates, hke Plato, was especially opposed to civic strife 
and the extreme individuaUstic communism that demanded a 
redivision of lands and abohtion of debts.^ In the ideal past of 
his dreams, there were no extremes of wealth and poverty, private 
property was safe, and revolutions did not rend the state. Now, 
on the other hand, all is changed. Sparta is the only state that 
has not been torn by the bitter party strife.^ He contrasts the 
high regard in which the wealthy were held in his boyhood with the 
present jealous discontent. To be known as a wealthy man now is 
ahnost equivalent to being considered criminal and is a thing for 
which to apologize.^ This attitude toward the rich, of which 
Isocrates complains, is significant in the Hght of similar tendencies 
in our own democracy today. 

Again, in agreement with Plato and Aristotle, Isocrates opposes 
the doctrine of mere arithmetical equahty, and insists that the true 

' Paneg. 29, 33, 40; Areop. 74. But cf. Panath. 29 for a hint of prejudice against 
them. 

2 Panes 42. ^ Peace 20 f. 

^ Areop. 32 f.; cf. infra, p. 97, n. 6, for a fuUer mterpretation of Aristotle's pas- 
sage; cf. Letter to Timoth. 3; Areop. 44- 

sBousiris 16. ^Areop. 35- 

T Panath. 259; Paneg. 79; cf. also citations on poverty, above. 

^Or. 15. 159 f. 



8o GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

equality apportions to each what befits his capacity.^ But though 
he is hostile to the crasser type of communism, he makes the chief 
characteristic of the ideal past a noble community feeling and spirit 
of co-operation. In that happy time, the common weal was first 
in the thought of all, each had regard for others' interests, the 
poor were not jealous of the rich, and the rich assisted the poor/ 
At times, he even approaches the modern humanitarian sentiment 
for the submerged classes. He defines true national prosperity 
as a condition in which no citizen is lacking the means of liveHhood,^ 
and thinks the poor might well be pardoned for their indifference 
to public welfare, in their anxiety over the daily means of sub- 
sistence.'' He also states the somewhat sociaHstic principle so 
emphasized by Plato, that the character of the state will be hke 
that of the ruler.^ 

^ Areop. 21 i. 

^ Areop. 35: 0,1 Si xPV'^^'-^ Koivai; 31 f., 51; for further mention of these ideal- 
izations of ancient Athens and Sparta, cf. infra, p. 143, n. 8. 
3Areop. 53. 

* Ibid. 83: oirhBtv rijv del vapovcrav ijfiipav Sid^ovffiv. 
s Cont. Nicocl. 31: Sri t6 ttjs 7r6Xewj SXtjs ^dos o/wiovrai. rots &pxov<Tiv. 



CHAPTER VI 
ARISTOTLE 

In the writings of Aristotle, we find a much richer source for 
a history of Greek economic thought. Though no extant work of 
his is devoted to economics, he left a multitude of writings on 
diverse subjects, as a monument to his wonderful versatility and 
tireless industry.^ Of these, the Politics and the Ethics are espe- 
cially fruitful in economic ideas, though, as in the case of Plato, 
such material is incidental to the main discussion. His general 
attitude toward wealth and some of its problems, we shall find to 
be often substantially in agreement with that of Plato. His 
economic vision was prejudiced by the same ethico-aristocratic 
spirit. Yet his practical, scientific mind caused him to deal with 
many economic questions more extensively, more directly, and more 
incisively than is true of any other Greek thinker. Caution must 
be observed, however, against reading into his statements more 
meaning than he purposed to convey. He was not the creator of 
the science of political economy,^ though his apprehension of many 
of the chief concepts of economics was probably clearer than has 
often been admitted by modern economists.^ 

At the very threshold of economic speculation, Aristotle 
advanced beyond Plato and Xenophon, in that he perceived the 
fallacy in the confusion of household and public economy. He saw 

' Cf. infra for the Economica, which is generally recognized to be from a later 
member of the Peripatetic school, about 250-200 B.C.; cf. S\x?,evai\A, Economica, Intro, 
to the ed.; Croiset, op. cit., IV, 710; Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 944 ff. Moreover, it 
deals chiefly with the practical phase of economics. On the other hand, we shall cite 
Eud. Eth. and Mag. mor. under Aristotle, since, though later than him, they merely 
imitate his thought, in so far as they touch economics. For the numerous and 
diverse writings ascribed to Aristotle, cf. Christ, op. cit., IV [1905], 684 ff. 

^ B. St. Hilaire (preface to his French translation of the Politics, pp. 4-1 1) calls 
him "le cr^ateur de I'economie politique." Zmavc {Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Philos. 
[1899], pp. 407 ff.) also tends to overestimate him. 

3 Zmavc {ibid, and also Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Staatstedss. [1902], pp. 48 ff.). 
emphasizes this fact. 

81 



82 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

that they differed, not only in size or numbers, but in essential 
type/ In his later discussion of wealth, however, he overlooked 
his distinction, and fell into the old Greek confusion. 

VALUE 

The extent of Aristotle's contribution to the theory of value has 
been very diversely estimated.^ In a classic passage of the Politics, 
he distinguishes between the two uses of an object, the direct use 
for which it was produced, and the indirect as an article for 
exchange.^ This has often been heralded as an anticipation of 
Adam Smith's distinctions between value in use and value in 
exchange.'* Such an interpretation, however, is hardly warranted.^ 
The entire emphasis of Aristotle in the passage is upon use rather 
than upon value. The exchange use is declared subordinate, and 
the context shows that the purport of the statement is to teach the 
uneconomic doctrine that exchange (juera/SXT/ri/ci?) is an artificial 
use, especially when pursued for gain. 

Moreover, the passage fails to develop the definition further 
by distinguishing between economic utilities that involve a cost 
of production, and other necessities that are devoid of exchange 
value because of their universality.'^ Need is recognized as an 
element in exchange value,'' but it is not differentiated from eco- 
nomic demand that has the means to purchase. All that can safely 

' Pol. i. I. 125207-13, cited on p. 9, n. 5, a criticism of Plato's Politics 258E-259C; 
on the truth in this confusion, cf. p. 10. Even Adam Smith said: "What is wise with 
a family can hardly be foolish with a great kingdom." 

^ Besides St. Hilaire and Zmavc, cited above, among those favorable are Cossa, 
Hist, des doctrines economiques, p. 149; Blanqui, op. cit., I, 49, 86. More reserved 
are Souchon, op. cit., p. 127; DuBois, op. cit., p. 50; Haney, op. cit., pp. 47 f.; unfair 
interpretation, Diihring, op. cit., pp. 20 f. 

3 i. 9. 1257^6-9: SKiffTov yap KT'^fiaros Slttt] t) xp^crfs iariv d/u06Tepat 5^ /ca^' 
axjrb fxiv dXX' ovx o/xolui Ka6' avrd, dXX' ij fitv oiKela ij 5' o6k oUela rod irpdynaTos otov 
inro5-fin.aTos r) re iiwddeais Kal ij fiera^XrjTiK-^. 

* Wealth of Nations, I, chap. iv. 

s Cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 127; Haney, op. cit., p. 47. 

^Unless this is implied in /cTiJ/xaroj, 125706, as «o'Tt yap 17 fiera^XriTiKT) irivrwv 
(14 f.) might seem to indicate. Zmavc {Archiv., etc., p. 410) points to 1253633-39, 
on the automatic tripods of Hephaestus, as implying it, but if so it was unintended 
by Aristotle, But cf. infra., pp. 84 and 86, n. 4, where it is recognized. 

7 1257011; 5-19, but not specifically stated, and the term xpe^« does not occur here. 



ARISTOTLE 83 

be said of this statement of Aristotle, therefore, is that he acci- 
dentally hit upon a basal distinction, which, had it been his purpose, 
he might have used as starting-point for the development of the 
modem theory of value. 

Certain other passages from his writings reveal a clearer appre- 
hension of the distinction. In the Rhetoric, he states the principle 
that exchange value is measured by rarity, though this may not 
be a criterion of the actual value of the commodity to life.^ The 
latter is measured by its necessity or practical utility.^ 

A paragraph from the Nicomachaean Ethics, though it does not 
treat the problem directly, is also an evidence of Aristotle's insight 
into the elements of economic value.^ It has been strangely 
slighted by most historians of economic thought, though its sig- 
nificance has been recognized by editors of the Ethics.'^ It grows 
out of his discussion of fair exchange, which is a part of the larger 
subject of justice. He observes that a proportional equality 
(/cara Tr}v kvakoyiav taov) between diverse products must exist 
before exchange can take place ,?^' since the labor involved in their 
production is not equal.^ This equaHty he obtains through a pro- 
portion, in which the objects of exchange stand in inverse ratio 
to the producers.' The equalization of the commodities is thus 
based, according to Aristotle, upon an estimate of the labor or 
cost of production in each case.^ Again, he points out that the 

' i. 7. 14: Kal rb (Tvavidntpov rov &<i>dbvov, olov xpvahi ffid'^pov Axpriffrbrepos &v 
iWov 5i Tpbirov re icpdovov rov ffvavlov, 5ti t} XP^<^" virep^xei • rb yap TroWdxts rov 
6\i'ydKi<: inrepix^i ■ Mev Xiyerai Hpurrov fi^y v8up. Cf. Pind. 01. i. i and Cope-Sandys 
ed. of Ar, Rhet. (I, pp. 130 f., 1877). 

=> Ibid. 3 V, V. 8-14. 1 133^5-1 133&10 ff- " E.g., Stewart. 

5 113305-12; IS f.; 18; cf. Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1243&28-38. 

^ N. Eth. 113305-12, etc., 12 f.: oiOkv yap KwXi/et Kpetrrov ehai to Oaripov epyov 
fj rb ear4pov. The emphasis seems to be on quality of labor, as suggested by Kpeirrov. 
Cf. both li<rov and olov (15) and p. 84 n. 3. 

1 1bid. 7-10; by joining means and extremes together, the proportionate exchange 
is effected. Cf. also 1133645.; 1133032 f. As observed by Ritchie (Palgrave's 
Dictionary, art. "Aristotle") and H. Sewall (op. ciL, p. 3, n. 2), the proportion is 
clearer to modems if we make our standard one hour of labor of each workman 
instead of the men themselves. 

8 Stewart (Notes to N. Eth., I, 449) suggests that this gives what the economists 
call "natural value," but that the market value oscillates from this because of supply 
and demand. 



84 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

standard by which all products are measured is need or demand 
(xpeta) for reciprocal services/ thereby making demand a social 
fact dependent upon organized society. It is, in his thought, the 
"common denominator of value" which finally determines the 
actual basis on which all goods are exchanged or services rendered. 
Elsewhere Aristotle's conception of value is more individuahstic, 
like that of Xenophon and Plato, but Haney^ overlooks this passage 
in asserting that his notion of value is "purely subjective." It is 
not merely "equal wants" that are considered, as he states, but 
equal costs as well.^ This demand, or common measure of value, 
is expressed in terms of money (j^o/itc/xa) ."* 

It is clear then, from this passage in the Ethics, that Aristotle 
understood that economic value is determined by demand, as meas- 
ured in money, and by labor invested or cost of production .^ This 
latter element, of course, involves the condition that the product be 
limited in supply, though this is not expressly stated.*^ To be sure, 
the interest of the moral philosopher is also paramount here,' as in 
the Politics passage. The thought is centered on fair exchange, as a 
phase of justice, rather than upon the problem of value. Neverthe- 
less, his discussion reveals a clear insight into demand and cost of 
production as the two most important elements in economic value.^ 

' 1133025-27; 1 13366 f. Cf. p. 34, n. 5, for Plato's use of the term. 

^Op. ciL, pp. 47 f. 

3 Cf. the discussion and notes above; also 1133015 f., where both elements seem 
to be recognized, though the meaning of the passage is disputed. Cf . infra, p. 108, n. 3. 

^ 1133019 ff.; 29; 1 133610 fT., cited f«/ra, on money. It clearly distinguishes the 
quality of exchangeableness. Cf. iv. i. 11 19626 f., cited infra, n. 7. Cf. pp. 38 f. for 
Plato's theory. 

5 So Stewart, op. cit., in loc; Zmavc, Archiv., etc., p. 415, who criticizes Karl 
Marx {Kapital, 4th ed., I, 26) for denying this. Barker (op. cit., p. 379) says that 
Aristotle did not recognize the "seller's cost of production"; but cf. 384, where he 
implies the opposite. 

^ But cf. his definition of wealth, pp. 85 f. 

7 Bonar {op. cit., p. 40) criticizes him for this. The words oiia and Tifitj are not 
used in the passage, but for the former in a very clear economic sense, cf. iv. i. 1 1 19626- 
27; XP'?/'^'^'''* S^ X4yofj,ev Trdvra Sauv i] d^ia vofxlaiiaTi. fxerpe'iTai. 

* For further discussion of this Ethics passage, cf. infra on money, exchange, and 
distribution. Mag. mor. i. 33. 1193619-1 19462 repeats the idea, citing Plato Rep. 
on the exchange of the four producers in his primitive state. 



ARISTOTLE 85 

WEALTH 

Since Aristotle had a better apprehension of the theory of value 
than other Greek thinkers, we may expect him also to define more 
clearly the concept of wealth. In the Politics, he names the 
following attributes of genuine (aXrjdLPos) wealth (ttXoDtos) : neces- 
sary to Hf e ; useful to persons associated in a household or a state ; 
capable of accumulation (dr]crav pianos); Limited in extent {ovk 
areipos).^ According to Mill,^ from the ''economic" standpoint, 
wealth is "all useful and agreeable things" of a "material nature" 
possessing "exchange value"; and, to have exchange value, they 
must be "capable of accumulation." 

In comparing these two definitions, it should be recognized at 
the outset that Aristotle's term "genuine" does not mean "truly 
economic," as it might in Mill, but rather "legitimate wealth" as 
distinguished from that gained from false finance (xpT/AtartcrrtKi?) ;^ 
also that his "necessary to life" and "limited in extent" are not 
used in the economic but in the moral sense, as opposed to luxury 
and extreme interest in money-making. Mill's "all useful and 
agreeable things" presents a marked contrast to this in spirit. 
Aristotle's "useful" means "what subserves the final good" (rpos 
dyadrjv ^o:r]v), while Mill's means "things that give sensations of 
comfort or pleasure." Thus Aristotle's wealth is necessarily 
limited, while Mill's is unlimited, since, as Barker observes, "only 
an infinity of wealth can satisfy an infinity of need."'* It will be 
seen from the following discussion, however, that Aristotle includes 
more than "necessary things" in his category of economic wealth. 
He does not specify "material things," as does Mill, but it seems 
probable that this is his meaning.^ In all the passages where he 
enimierates the different kinds of wealth, only material things are 

' i. 8. 1256628-32. The term Aireipos, as applied to wealth, is used by Plato and 
Aristotle of undue love of money (Rep. 373D, S91D; Laws 870A); for Aristotle, cf. 
passage above and infra. There is a sense, even from the economic standpoint, in 
which wealth is not unlimited. 

^ Prin. of Pol. Econ., preliminary remarks, and Book I, chap, iii, 3, 

3 On this term in Plato and Aristotle, cf. infra under exchange. 

'• Op. cit., p. 374; cf. infra on the moral attitude of Aristotle to wealth. 

s His unfair criticism of Plato seems to argue otherwise {Rep. 369C ff . ; Pol. 
1291312-19), but cf. infra. 



86 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

included, except slaves, who are counted as mere tools.^ One of 
these passages specifically excludes intellectual wealth by defining 
property as a ''separable instrument."^ The use of the term for 
value {a^la) probably implies the same limitation.' Though 
Aristotle does not mention exchange value specifically, it is clearly 
implied in his definition. "Things useful for the association of a 
state" and things "capable of accumulation" must have exchange 
value, thus excluding illimitable utilities such as air and light.'* 
His use of KTTJua, "possession," and his recognition of cost of pro- 
duction and economic demand as the main factors in determining 
value,' are further evidence of this. Moreover, as seen above, 
in the Ethics, he clearly makes exchange value an attribute of all 
wealth.** 

From our comparison of the two definitions, then, it is evident 
that, though Aristotle is antithetical to Mill in putting the ethical 
interest first, and though his definition is not so scientifically 
specific, yet the two agree in recognizing the quaHties of materiahty, 
exchange value, and possibility of accumulation as necessary 
attributes of wealth. We shall see below, also, that the Greek 
philosopher was the forerunner of the orthodox English economists 
in criticizing the common confusion of money with wealth.' 

But, despite his grasp of the leading principles in the economics 
of wealth, he takes the same negative moral attitude toward wealth 
as does Plato, though his hostility is also directed primarily against 
the spirit that commercializes life and makes unlimited wealth the 
summum bonum. To his mind, this idea that wealth is the sum of 

' ii. 7. 12676105.; i254ai6 f.; Rhet. i. 5. i36iai2 ff. 

'Pol. I254fli6ff.: KTTjfia 5i 6pyavov irpaKTiKbv Kal x«/«<''7'<5'', similar to Walker's 
term "transferability" (Pol. Econ., 3d ed., p 5); cf. Mill, op. cit., preliminary remarks 
on the term. 

3 N. Eth. iv. I. 1 1 19626 f., cited on p. 84, n. 7. 

* Cf. the discussion above on value; cf. Mill, op. cit., Book I, chap, iii, 3, on the 
quality of " storableness " as an attribute of wealth. Newman (Pol. of Ar., II, note 
to 1256626 ff.) asks if 6rjffavpi<rn6s can be applied to slaves and cattle, and if the defi- 
nition can include land. These are all included; cf. n. i, above. 

s Pol. i. 9. 125706 and 14 f., and the discussion above of N. Eth. 113305 ff. 

«Cf. n. 3. 

7 Cf. Smith, op. cit., IV, for criticism of this basal confusion of the mercantile 
theory. 



ARISTOTLE 87 

all goods is almost the necessary accompaniment of the possession 
of superfluous wealth, but it is especially characteristic of the new- 
rich (v€0)(TTL KeKTrjuevoLs)."- Yet Aristotle is too practical to be 
ascetic. He realizes that leisure (crxoXi]) is necessary for moral 
development and for good citizenship, and that this cannot be 
enjoyed except on a basis of sufficient wealth. A fair competency 
is therefore desirable for the best Hfe,^ for men should hve not only 
temperately, but liberally .^ Poverty produces civic strife and 
crime.'' Wealth in the absolute sense (dTrXcos) is always good, 
though it may not always be fitted to a certain individual, or be 
properly used by him.^ Each, therefore, should choose what is 
good for himself, and use it accordingly.^ All this sounds saner 
than the subjective notion of wealth taught by Plato. But right 
here is the secret of the difficulty as Aristotle sees it. Just because 
all external wealth is good in the absolute sense, the popular error 
has arisen that it is the final cause (atrta) of all happiness,^ whereas 
the actual relation of wealth to happiness is the same as that of the 
lyre to the tune. There can be no music without the intervention 
of the musician.^ External goods are therefore not of primary 
importance to Hfe. The goods of the soul should be placed first,' 
for the virtues of life are not gained and preserved by material 
wealth, but vice versa," and the men of high character and 

' Rhet. B. 16. 1390-91. 

'Pol. i. 8. 1 25663 1 f.; N. Eth. i. 8. i099a3i-33, especially d.Mvarov yip fi oii 
pddiov rd, (caXd irpdrreLv axop'^yoTov 6vTa; 1101014 f., in the definition of the evdalfiuv 
man. 

i Pol. iii. 6. 1265032 f.: iXevd^pws; N. Eth. iii., chaps. 13-14 on ffwcppoffivr), and 
iv, chaps. I, 2, on iXevOepidr-qs and da-urla; but display of wealth is vulgar (iv. 2. 
1 1 230 19-2 2). Ruskin (Stones of Venice, VIII, 69 [Vol. X, 389]) refers to Aristotle on 
liberality. 

■* 17 5^ Trevia ffrdcrtv i/xTrotei Kai KaKovpylav. 

Sy. I. 112963; so Mag. mor. B. 3. 119966-9, 14-35; cf. N. Eth. i. 8. i09863iflE. 
for a similar distinction between habit (^i«) and practice (xpw'^s) of virtue. 

^v. I. 112964-6; cf. Pol. i. 10. 1258023-27 on the duty of the weaver or states- 
man; iv (vii). 15. 13341136 f.; 13. 1332022 f. 

''Pol. 1332025 f. ^ Pol. iv (vii). 13. 1332026 f. 

9iV. Eth. i. 8. 1098&12-15; cf. Pol. 1323025 f.; Rhet. i. 5. 13606255.; also Mag. 
mor. A. 3. 118461-5 and Etid. Eth. ii. i. 1218632. 

^'^ Pol. 1323040 f.; cf. Jesus' sentence, "Seek ye first," etc.; cf. also 1323619 f.; 
also pp. 24 ff., Plato. 



88 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

intelligence are most happy, even though their wealth is moderate.^ 
The common attitude of the money-maker that wealth is unHmited 
is contrary to nature.^ Genuine wealth cannot be unlimited,^ since 
external goods are strictly defined by their utility for a certain 
thing. Excessive wealth thus either harms the owner, or is, at 
least, useless to him."* Neither can wealth be rightly made the 
summum bonum, for it is really not an end at all, but only a collec- 
tion of means to an end {opyapcov ttXtjOos).^ The inevitable result 
of making it the end and measure of all is moral degeneration.^ If 
the highest interests of life are to be preserved, it must always be 
kept subservient. First things must be placed first, both by the 
individual and by the state .^ 

PRODUCTION 

It is often asserted that Aristotle denied the very existence of 
a problem of production.' This statement has been based pri- 
marily on certain passages in the Politics. ^° These passages, how- 
ever, are not a denial of the importance of production. Their 
purport is merely to show that the chief aim of Kf e is not to produce 
or to provide wealth, but to use it for the advancement of life's 
highest interest. From this standpoint, both acquisition (/crTyrtKi?) 
and production {Troi-qTLKrj) are subordinate arts." So far is Aris- 

' Pol. 13236, 1-6. 

^ N. Eth. i. 5. 109605 f.: 6 5^ xP'7M*''''<'"''t)s ^laios tIs ianv. Cf. also Pol. 1256528- 
32, discussed above, and i, chaps. 8 and 9, discussed under exchange. 

3 Cf. n. 2. '» Pol. 13 2367-1 1, and discussion above. 

s 1256636; N. Eth. i. 5. 190606!.; xpiJ'^'MO" Tap Kal dtXXou x'ip"'; 7- 1097027: 
drj\ov ws oijK i<TTi irdvra riXeia. 

^ Pol. i. 9. 125802 ff.; cf. also Mag. mor. B. 3. 12000-6. 

7 1258010-14, similar to Plato Rep. i on the arts and their function; cf. a similar 
passage from Isocrates {Paneg. 76) on the virtues of the Persian War heroes. 

* Pol. iii. 9. 1280025-32; the chief ambition of a state is not tQv KTrifidruv x^P^v, 
but eB ^Tjv. Cf. above on the similar preachments of Plato, for their relation to 
modern economic ideas and conditions. Cf. Plato Criio 48B: oii rb ^ijv irepl irXelarov 
■woLr)riov, dXXd t6 eD ^rjv. 

9 Cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 69; for Greek terms for production, cf. p. 66 and notes. 

"i. 10. 1258019-38; 4. 125407: 6 5^ ^ios irpd^is, ov Troli)<rls iariv. 

" 10. 1258033 ff., TTJi vweperiKfis, impossible for the economist, but true, for the 
moralist; cf. p. 69 for his distinction (i 25401 ff.) between 6pyava ■n-oi-qTi.Kd and KTrifxa 
irpaKTLKbv. 



ARISTOTLE 89 

totle from giving no place to production, that a later chapter 
of the Politics is devoted to the consideration of the scheme of 
supply, including production.^ To be sure, he does not lay much 
emphasis on genuine production in his enumeration. Industry is 
barely mentioned, while agriculture is discussed in detail. His 
"free-holder" is a consumer of the gifts of nature, rather than a real 
producer.* He classifies the truly productive employments that 
work for themselves {avT6(f)VT0p) as those of the nomad, the farmer, 
the brigand, the fisherman, and the hunter, and makes those that 
live by barter (dXXa777s) or trade {KairrfKeias) parasitic.^ 

In another passage, finance, strictly defined (otKetarar?;), is 
limited to all forms of agriculture, and even the hired labor (/jLia- 
dapvla) of industry is included in unnatural finance.'* Aristotle 
has thus often been compared to the physiocrats, who distinguished 
between creative and parasitic classes of workers, upheld the 
"natural" order as the ideal, and eulogized agriculture and the 
"extractive" industries as the only productive ones. As Souchon^ 
has observed, however, the resemblance is only superficial. Yet 
the fact that he fails to see that exchange is productive of a time 
and place value, and the fact that he includes hired labor, skilled 
and unskilled, among the unnatural activities, are sufficient evi- 
dence that he had only a superficial grasp of the principles of pro- 
duction.^ But the frequent assertion that he includes brigandage 

' i. 2.; on both the above, cf. Newman, op. cit., in loc. 

^ Cf. especially 1258034 ff.: fidXiffTa 5^, Kaddirep etperai irpbrepov, dei (pCaei tovto 
virdpxeiv. Cf. Susemihl and Hicks, Pol. of Ar., I (1894), Intro., p. 30. 

3 1256(140 ff., avT6(pvTos, "self-existent," with ipyacrla, as here, equals avrovpyla, 
"agriculture." 

* 125869-27. 

^Op. ciL, pp. 96, 98 f., n. i; cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 47; KautZ; op. cit., p.138; 
Ingram, op. cit. , p. 18. The physiocrats thought that commerce and industry increased 
the value of raw materials only enough to pay for labor and capital expended. Com- 
merce was an expensive necessity, a tax on agriculture. For a good summary, cf. 
Haney, pp. 138 ff. Quesnay {Tableau Econ. [1776]) followed Xenophon {Econ. v. 17) 
as his motto. But the motive of the physiocrats was economic, not moral and political, 
as was that of Aristotle. 

^Pol. 1258&21 ff.; probably implied also in i256fl4off.; but cf. vi (iv). 4. 1291a- 
I ff., where the mechanic and hired laborer are counted among the necessary parts of 
the state. 



90 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

and war among the productive arts is unwarranted, for he classifies 
them only among the acquisitive means/ 

Aristotle almost outdoes Plato in his subordination of all pro- 
duction to ethics, though he keeps their respective aims more 
distinct. According to him, the productive arts are not ends in 
themselves. They are means to the supreme end of the moral 
life, whose first interest is not in production, but in right action.^ 
As seen in our discussion of Plato, such a doctrine is not fruitful, 
economically. If interpreted too rigidly, it stifles commerce and 
industry. Yet, at bottom, it holds a great truth which modern 
economists are emphasizing — the fact that wealth and production 
alike must be subordinated to the general individual and social 
good. Moreover, the philosopher should not be interpreted in too 
hard-and-fast a manner. Barker is extreme in his statement that 
the economic theory of Aristotle is a mere treatise on "the ethics 
of family life" and that "the fundamental characteristic of his idea 
of production is a reactionary archaism, which aboHshes all the 
machinery of civilization in favor of the self-supporting farm and 
a modicum of barter."^ Bonar's assertion is also unwarranted, 
that "Aristotle thinks it beneath the dignity" of his discourse to 
give the practical details of agriculture and industry "more than 
a cursory notice."'' Such details were not germane to the plan of 
his work, and would certainly be considered out of place in a modem 
general text on economics. Aristotle's economic doctrine, as a 
whole, is certainly far broader in scope than the family, and, while 
based upon ethics, is something more than an ethical treatise. As 
seen above, he recognizes the necessity of a moderate acquisition 
of wealth, both for the prosperous state and for the virtuous man, 
and demands only that the human interest be put first.^ 

' 125640 ff.; 1256623 f. To him, production is a branch of acquisition. Cf. 
p. 28, on Plato's use of the terms. 

2 i2s8ai9-38; 125407, cited on p. 88, n. 10. 3 Op. cit., pp. 358, 375 f. 

< Op. cit., p. 39, on the basis of Pol. 1258634 f.: r6 di Kara fi^pos dKpiPoXoyeia-dat 
Xpi^ctMO*' M^" ""p^j rds ipyafflas, (popriKdv di rb ivbiaTpl^eiv. (jtopTiKbv may mean 
merely "tiresome," not "vulgar." 

5 Cf. Zmavc, Archiv., etc., p. 431; cf. passages cited infra, on the attitude of 
Aristotle to labor; cf. vi (iv). 4. 129101 ff., especially ecrt 5^ tovto rb irepl rds rixvai 
S}v dvev ir6Xti' advvaTov oUeiadai.. 



ARISTOTLE 91 

Agriculture. — Of the factors that enter into production, Aris- 
totle is, like the other Socratics, most interested in natural resources. 
He emphasizes especially the agricultural Hfe. To his mind, it is 
the only true foundation of "natural finance," since the financial 
means should be provided in nature herself.^ Natural finance 
(oiKetardrTj) is made to include only a proper knowledge of the care 
of land, cattle, bees, fowl, and other natural resources.^ It is 
natural, since it does not earn at the expense of others, as do retail 
trade and other methods of false finance. Aristotle also reveals 
his interest in agriculture by giving a bibliography of the subject. 
He names Charetides of Paros, Apollodorus of Lenmos, "and 
others on other branches" — a hint that many such works on practi- 
cal economics may be lost to us.^ However, his interest, even in 
this primary industry, is not of a practical nature, Hke that of 
Xenophon. He relegates it to the non-citizen classes, along with 
commerce and the mechanical arts."* 

Capital. — Aristotle is the only Greek thinker who has given 
a clear definition of capital. After defining the slave as an instru- 
ment (opyavov), in order to distinguish still more sharply, he differ- 
entiates between the two kinds of wealth — that which is used for 
consvmaption, and that which is employed for further production.^ 
As an example of the former, he uses the bed and the dress, and of 
the latter the weaver's comb (Kep/cis).^ He points out that all 
wealth is produced for consumption, but that part of it is consumed 
indirectly in manufacture. Here is an approach to Adam Smith's^ 
definition of capital, as "that part of a man's stock which he expects 
to afford him revenue." Unfortunately, however, the Greek fails 
to pursue his distinction farther. The theme of his thought is, 
after all, not capital or production either, but the status of the slave, 
though, from his standpoint, the slave is capital. He proceeds 
with the very uneconomic assertion that life consists in action 

^Fol. 1258034-38, cited on p. 89, n. 2. ^ 1258&9-21. 

^Ibid. 40 ff.; cf. Newman, op. ciL, II, 204, on the statements of Varro De re 
rtisHca i. i. 8 and Columella i. i. 7 that Aristotle and Theophrastus wrote on agri- 
culture. Cf. also (Plato) Axiochus 368C. 

1 Pol. iv (vii). 9. 132901 f. ^ 125402-4. 

s 125401 ff.; cf. pp. 68 and 88 for Greek terms. " Op. cit., ii, chap. i. 



92 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

{■jrpa^Ls), not in production (ttoit/o-is) ,^ and concludes with the real 
goal of his argument, that the slave is an assistant {v-rreper'qs), or 
an animate instrument in the realm of action, not of production. * 
The slave is therefore an instrument to increase the life or action 
of his master, who himself is not represented as a producer, but as 
a consumer of the present stock. Thus what bids fair to be a fruit- 
ful distinction ends in a denial of the primary importance of pro- 
duction. The purpose of Aristotle is here similar to that in some 
passages of Ruskin^ and Adam Smith j"" to emphasize consumption 
rather than production. 

In another passage, he repeats his definition of capital in differ- 
ent terms. Goods are classified as for ''purposes of production" 
or for ''mere enjoyment,"^ but here again no theory of capital is 
developed. Yet these two definitions are sufficient evidence that 
he advanced beyond his predecessors in his apprehension of the 
meaning of the term.^ His division of production and finance, 
however, into the natural or Hmited, which deals only with natural 
resources,' and the unnatural, which is unhmited, and includes 
commerce, usury, and even industry,^ reveals a mind neither greatly 
interested in capital, nor clear as to its true economic importance. 
His assertion in the Ethics^ that the prodigal (aauros) benefits many 
by his reckless expenditures, and that parsimoniousness {aveXev- 
depla) is a worse evil than prodigality also shows that he did not 
sufficiently emphasize the importance to society of economy, the 

^ Pol. 125407; cf. p. 88, n. 10. 

2 Pol. 125408 ff. He thinks chiefly of the domestic slave. 

3 Unto This Last, p. 61, an unjust criticism of Mill; ibid., IV, 78: "Production 
is primarily for the mouth, not for the granary." 

^Op. cit., IV, chap, viii: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all 
production; .... and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so 
far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." 

5 For reference and Greek terms, cf. p. 68. 

^ For his term d<popfj.ij, cf . p. 68, n. 8, and infra. It probably was a mere business 
word to him. DuBois (op. cit., p. 38) thinks that he had a very clear idea of its 
significance. 

''Pol. 1258612-21; cf. 1258037 f. 

* Ibid. 21-27, and entire chaps., 8-11. For terms, cf. infra. 

9iv. 1121029; 1122014 f.; cf. the stress on ddais and XPW^^ rather than on 
KTrjcrts and 'Krjypi.s, 112008-13; 614-16, and Stewart's notes, I, 323. 



ARISTOTLE 93 

mother of stored capital. On this point, Plato has the saner view,' 
and the extreme attitude of Aristotle is certainly not characteristic 
of the Greeks in general.^ His failure to grasp the true theory of 
interest is a further evidence of his superficial apprehension of the 
function of money capital. He does not see, with Adam Smith, 
that money represents so much stored capital, potentially pro- 
ductive, and that "since something can everywhere be made^by 
the use of money, something ought everywhere to be paid for the 
use of it."3 In justice to him, however, it should be observed that, 
though he failed to see the importance of unlimited economic prog- 
ress through constant increase in the capitalistic stock, there is 
after all a sense in which he was right. There is a natural limit to 
just acquisition, and it is especially with the individual in relation 
to wealth that he is dealing. He is thus, with Plato, a forerunner of 
the present tendency in economics, which is inclined to set a limit to 
the amount that one can justly earn in a lifetime by his own work.^ 
Labor and industry. — Aristotle's attitude to labor, the third 
factor in production, is similar to that of Plato, though he lays 
greater emphasis on the evil physical and moral effect of the 
"banausic" arts. They are defined as those that "render men 
unfit for the practice of virtue.''^ They not only cause the body 
to degenerate,^ but, being "mercenary" employments, they also 

' Rep. SSaB, discussed above. 

' Souchon {op. cit., p. 121) seems to think it was. 

3 Pol. 1258^8, but cf. p. 39 and infra on this word t6/coi. Cf. also Ar. Clouds 20; 
1285 ff.; A. Smith, op. cit., II, chap. iv. 

4 Souchon {op. cit., p. 97) is hardly fair to Aristotle on this point, but cf. also 
p. 96, n. i; cf. Ruskin, Time and Tide, XV, 81 (Vol. XVII, 388); Mun. Pul., Pref., 
21 (Vol. XVII, 144); ibid., VI, 139 (p. 264); ibid., 153 and note (p. 277), which cites 
Laws 743C, on the doctrine that the just are neither rich nor poor. 

s Pol. V (viii). 2. 133768-11. The terms for mechanical labor are t^x*"?, of ability 
through practice; 5771^1011^76$, of one who works for the people, rather than for him- 
self or one other; ^dvav<ros, originally of work by the fire, but later the common term 
for mechanical labor, usually with a derogatory sense in the philosophers; cf. 
^avavala, "vulgarity," N. Eth. iv. 4. 1122031; §iva.v(To%, "vulgar man," ibid. 1123019; 
Etymol. mag; Schol. to Plato Rep. 495E; Pollux i. 64. 50; Hesychius, s.v. The 
Greeks did not clearly distinguish the finer from the mechanical arts; cf. Buchsen- 
schiitz, op. cit., p. 266; Pol. vi (iv). 4. 129101 ff., where all are included under 
^dvavffov. Cf. Cope-Sandys, Ar. Rhet., 2d ed., I, 9, 27, note. Cf. above, p. 33, n. 7, 
for Ruskin's attitude. 

^Pol. 1337&12; 1258&37. 



94 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

vulgarize the soul.' The occupations that require the most 
physical labor are the most "slavish."^ The Hfe of artisans and 
laborers is mean (0aDXos) and has no business with virtue.^ The 
citizen youth should be taught none of the ilHberal pursuits of 
the tradesmen/ No citizen should enter into industrial labor or 
retail trade, since they are ignoble {ayevviis) and hostile to virtue/ 
Even all the agricultural work must be performed by slaves, that 
the citizens may have leisure for personal development and for 
service to the state.* In addition to his other objections to retail 
trade and the arts, Aristotle considers them to be naturally unjust, 
since they take something from him with whom they deal.' Indeed, 
the productive classes have but slight recognition in his ideal state. 
They seem to be tolerated only as a necessary evil, and are in a 
state of limited slavery d^copio-juejn;^ tivo. bovKdav. Virtue is 
even less possible for them than for slaves, and they lead a less 
tolerable life.* All hired labor belongs to the category of "false 
finance" which degrades individual and state alike.' The state 
that produces a multitude of mechanics and but few hoplites can 
never be great." 

Here we have the very antithesis of the modern commercial 
standpoint. However, the truth is not all with the modems, for 
a highly developed commerce and industry and the general pros- 
perity of the mass of the people are not always necessarily coinci- 
dent. Moreover, it is hardly fair to interpret Aristotle too rigidly. 
He understood well the necessity of craftsmen and all other indus- 
1 trial workers to the state." The burden of his attack was directed 
against retail trade. Like Plato's his prejudice had a moral and 
political root,^^ and was arrayed against the extreme application 

' 1337*13 f- " V (viii). 2. 1337*5-7- 

* 1258638 f. 5 iv (vii). 9. 1328637-41; cf. iii. 5. 1277633 ff. 

3 vii (vi). 4. 1319026-28. * 132911; 1330125-31. 

'1330025-31; cf. also the pseudo-£coM. i. 2. 1343026 ff. 

' i. 3. 1260040 ff.; cf. infra for discussion of this idea. 

9 1258625-27; Rhet. i. 9. 27, 13670; iXevdipov yap to htj irpbi &\\ov ^ijp. His 
entire argument for the slave as a mere "instrument" (cf. infra) shows the same 
attitude. Stewart {op. cit., II, 316) says that he failed to see that labor is "an essential 
function of the social organism, something Ka\6v and not merely dvajKalov." 

^° Pol. iv (vii). 4. 1326022-24. 

" 1328619-23; vi (iv). 129101-3. " 132901; i. II. 1258638 f. 



ARISTOTLE 95 

to labor, and against its false purpose, rather than against labor 
itself. He insisted that even intellectual work, when carried to an 
extreme, and pursued with the wrong aim, might become equally 
demorahzing.^ 

Here is a doctrine which our modern age, that would place even 
education on a bread-and-butter basis, and that tends to kill 
initiative and vision by extreme speciaHzation, might well con- 
sider. Even Latin literature, when taught as it too often is, merely 
as a s>Titactical grind to prepare teachers to pursue the same folly 
is no more one of the humanities than is industrial chemistry.'* 
Furthermore, Aristotle and Plato are doubtless right in their belief 
that a necessary extreme application to physical labor to earn the 
daily bread inevitably prevents mental and moral development 
and the proper performance of the duties of citizenship. And our 
modem democracies with their boasts of universal suffrage are 
still something of a farce, as long as economic conditions are such 
that the mass of the population has left no time to think of any- 
thing, except how to provide the bare physical necessities. Aris- 
totle's insistence upon leisure for the Hfe of the citizen is no demand 
for aristocratic indolence.^ Neither is it Jowett's "condition of 
a gentleman," or merely the idealized notion of an "internal 
state" in which "the intellect, free from the cares of practical life, 
energizes or reposes in the consciousness of truth." It is rather 
a demand for release from material cares, so as to insure the highest 
degree of activity in self-development and political service.'' 

It may well be observed too, that Aristotle, the special champion 
of slavery, and reputed scorner of physical labor for freemen, 
exhibits a real interest in industry, in imguarded moments. One 

'v(viii). 2. 1337615-22, especially 17 f.: <x« ^^ iroWiip bia<popkv kclI rb tLvos 
<tvtK€v vpirrei. ru fi fiavddvei. 

' The difference in employments and studies is largely one of method and aim. 
The most humanizing pursuit becomes aveke'udepov and ^dvavvov, if followed to an 
extreme or with a sordid purpose, merely. Cf. Plato Laws 918B-919C, and the 
criticism of the superficial method and merely vocational motive in mathematical 
study {Rep. 525C ff.). Cf. above, p. 33, n. 7, for Ruskin's idea on this point. 

3 Aristotle also has the aristocratic idea of labor as robbing a freeman of his 
independence, Pol. v (viii). 1337615-22; Rhet. 1367a, cited on p. 94, n. 9. 

^ Pol. iv (vii). 9. 13286395.; N. Eth. x. 7. 117764; cf. Jowett, Ar. Pol., I, 144, 
cited by Stewart, op. cit., II, 446. 



96 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

of his arguments against communism is that it would take from the 
citizen the desire to work/ He repudiates the life of indolence, 
and finds happiness in action.^ He considers a practical knowledge 
of agriculture as essential to the successful economist,^ and defines 
the just as those who live upon their own resources or labor, instead 
of making profit from others, especially the farmers, who live from 
the land which they cultivate.'' We have seen above also that he 
makes labor one of the prime factors that determine value, and 
thus the most important element in production.^ Moreover, he 
shows that he has a practical grasp of the importance of productive 
employment for the citizens of a democracy. He advises the rich 
to furnish plots of land {jrjdta) to the poor, from the pubKc revenues, 
or else that they give the poor a start (d^opjui;) in other business, 
and thus turn them to industry.^ 

On the division of labor, Aristotle adds little to Plato's and 
Xenophon's theory. He agrees with Xenophon against Plato that 
it implies a necessary distinction between the work of men and 
women.'' He also applies the principle more extensively, so as to 
include all nature, whereas Plato seems to limit its application to 
man. Nature (77 <f)V(ns) he observes, does not produce things like 
the Delphian knife, in a poverty-stricken manner (tcvlxp^^) to 
serve many purposes, but each for a single purpose (eu rpos ev)} 
Like Plato, he makes the principle of reciprocity (to taov avrnre- 
irovdos) , out of which the division of labor arises, the saving element 
in the state.' He is also fully as emphatic in his application of the 
law to politics and citizenship.^" 

'Po/. ii. 3. i26i?>33-38. ^325031-33. 31258612-20. 

'• Rhet. ii. 4. 9. 1381a, where the word avrovpyol is used; cf. above on Euripides, 
s Cf. above on value, and N. Eth. v. 8-9. ii33a5-i8. 
^ Pol. vii (vi). 6. 13200385.; cf. p. 92, n. 6. ' i. 12. 125961 ff. 

* 125261 ff.; cf. Adam's note to Rep. 370B; Susemihl and Hicks's note to Pol. 
125263, for an exception to the rule {Depart. Anim. iv. 6. 11. 683022). aXV 6irov firj 

9 Pol. ii. 1261030 f.; N. Eth. v, 5. 

^^ Pol. 1261037-39; 1328611. Fontpertuis (<?/>. cz"^., p. 359) accounts for the com- 
parative superficiality of the Greek theory of labor by the fact that their political 
constitution diminished its importance, but cf. our introduction. Capitalistic employ- 
ment of free labor was probably not extensive. 



ARISTOTLE 97 

SLAVERY 

We have seen that the references to slavery in Xenophon and 
Plato are incidental, and reveal a certain unconscious naivete as 
to the actual social problem involved. By Aristotle's day, how- 
ever, the criticisms of the Sophists had shaken the foundations of 
all traditional institutions, and their thesis that slavery is con- 
trary to nature had become through the Cynics a prominent social 
theory/ The thought on the subject had crystallized into two 
leading doctrines — one including benevolence in justice, and hence 
denying the right of slavery; and the other identifying justice 
with the rule of the stronger, and hence upholding slavery as based 
on mere force.^ The practical Aristotle, an upholder of slavery, 
not from tradition, but through conscious belief in its economic 
necessity, thus takes his stand midway between the two opposing 
theories. He champions the old view of natural slavery, but 
rejects the basis of mere force for that of moraHty and benevolence.' 
His thesis is that slavery is a natural and necessary relation in 
human society, not accidental or conventional. The slave, being 
property, which is a multitude of instruments {opyavcov TrXrjdos), 
is an animate instrument {opyavov efirpvxov) conducive to Kfe (jpds 
^o)r]v).'^ He is just as necessary to the best life of the citizen as are 
inanimate instruments, and will be, until all tools work auto- 
matically, Hke the mythical figures of Daedalus or the tripods of 
Hephaestus.^ The slave is a servant in the realm of action (irpa^Ls) , 
not of production (irolrjcns) . He is not a producer of commodities 

' Cf. above, p. i6, n. 6; p. 17, n. i. 

^ On the theory of the Sophists, cf. above, pp. 16 f . On the Cynics, cf. infra; 
also Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 376; Ar. Pol. 1253620-23. Barker {pp. cit., p. 359), who has 
a very clear and discriminating criticism of Aristotle's theory of slavery, also states 
that slavery had been attacked by the "logic of events" — e.g., the enslavement of 
Athenians in Sicily, and the freeing of Messenian Helots, during the Theban suprem- 
acy, by which Greek freemen had become slaves and Greek slaves had become free. 
Cf. Pol. i255(Z ff., especialty 17 f. and 21-23, for the two theories. 

3 The locus classicus for his theory is Pol. i. 4-7. 12535145.; 13. 12596215. 
For good criticisms, cf . Wallon, Histoire de Vesclavage dans Vantiquite, 2d ed., pp. 372 ff.; 
and Barker, op. cit., i. Cf. also Newman, op. cit., I, 143 ff. 

* Pol. i. 8. 1256636; 1253632. 

5 Ibid. 33-39. Aristotle would have been satisfied with electricity. 



98 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

(ttoitjtikos) , but of services (irpaKTLKos),^ and just as property is 
merely a part or member (jxbpLov) belonging wholly to something 
else, so the slave, as property, belongs entirely to his master, and 
has no true existence apart from him.^ From these facts, the 
whole nature and power of the slave are evident. One who, 
though a human being, is merely property is a natural slave, since 
he is naturally not his own master, but belongs to another, in 
whom he finds his true being.^ As Barker has observed, this con- 
clusion of the first part of Aristotle's argument is inevitable if we 
admit his premises of the identity of "instruments" and property, 
but this is an unreal identity/ "Natural" (cf>vaei) is the saving 
word in his argument, but "human" {avBpoiiros) refutes it, as the 
philosopher practically admits later. 

He now proceeds to ask the question whether this "natural" 
slave of his hypothesis actually exists, for whom such a relation 
is just, or whether all slavery is contrary to nature, as some allege. 
He answers in the affirmative. The principle of rule and subjec- 
tion he declares to be a foundation law of all fife.' Men are con- 
stituted for either condition from birth, and their development 
follows this natural bent.^ This law may be observed in inanimate 
things,' in the natural subordinate relation of the body to the soul, 
of domestic animals to man, of female to male, of child to parent, 
and of subjects to rulers.* Thus all who are capable only of 
physical service hold the same relation to higher natures as the 
body holds to the soul, and are slaves by nature.' This is the only 
relation for which the slave is naturally fitted, since he can appre- 
hend reason without himself possessing it, being midway between 
animals and truly rational men.^° Usually also nature differen- 

' 125408, cited on p. 88, n. 10. This relieves the severity of the doctrine, since it 
shows that he thinks chiefly of domestic slavery. But in his proposed state, all indus- 
try is manned by slaves. Cf. iv (vii). 1330025-31. 

^ Pol. 125409-13; cf. Eud. Eth. 1241617-24. 

31254013-17. '<0/>. «7., p. 362, 

5 1254028-31; 1254615. As Wallon {op. cit., p. 391) points out, his radical error 
is a constant confusion of hypothesis with reality. ^ 

* 1254023-24. ^Ibid.ssf. 

^Ibid. 30-40; 1254&10-13; 1253&7; 18 f., cf. End. Eth. 1241J17 ff. 

91254616-19. ^'' Ibid. 20-26. 



ARISTOTLE 99 

tiates both the bodies and the souls of freemen and slaves, suiting 
them to their respective spheres and functions.^ 

This relation of slavery, Aristotle argues, is not only natural 
and necessary, but also beneficial for those who are so constituted.^ 
Just as the body is benefited by the rule of the soul, and domestic 
animals by the rule of man, so it is distinctly to the advantage of 
the "natural slave" to be ruled by a rational master. This is 
universally true, wherever one class of persons is as inferior to 
another as is the body to the soul.^ 

The philosopher's frank admissions, in which he opposes the 
doctrine that slavery is founded on mere force, are fatal to his 
first argument on the natural slave. He admits that nature does 
not always consummate her purpose; that the souls of freemen 
are sometimes found in the bodies of slaves, and vice versa;'' that 
it is difficult to distinguish the quahty of the soul, in any event ;5 
that the claim that slavery is neither natural nor beneficial has 
in it a modicum of truth, as there are sometimes merely legal slaves, 
or slaves by convention f that slavery based on mere might without 
virtue is unjust;^ that captives of war may be wrongly enslaved;^ 
that only those who actually deserve it, should meet this fate;' 
that the accidents of Hfe may bring even the noblest of mankind 
into slavery;"* and that only non- Greeks are ignoble and worthy 
of it." He even insists that the terms "slave-master," "freeman," 
"slave," when rightly used, imply a certain virtue or the lack of it, 
and therefore that to be justly a master, one must be morally 

' Ibid. 26 S. ' 1254021 f. 

3 1254&6-10; II f.; 16-20; 125566-15; a doctrine emphasized by Plato, Rep. 
590D; Laws 645B, 714A, 818A, 684C, as also by Carlyle and Ruskin; cf. Shorey, 
Class. Phil., IX (1914), 355 ff. Though Ruskin believed that natural slavery was the 
inevitable lot of many men, he did not uphold negro slavery, Mun. Pul., v, 133 
(Vol. XVII, 256 f.); Time and Tide, p. 149 (Vol. XVII, 438). But he pointed to the 
white economic slavery as equally bad, Stones of Venice, II (Vol. X, 193) ; Time and 
Tide, p. 105 (Vol. XVII, 403); Crown of Wild Olive, 119; Cestus Aglaia, p. 55. 

" 1254&32-34; 125565 ff. 

5 1254638 f. "^ Ihid. 19-21 and next note. 

'125503-7. ^Ibid.24i. 

^ Ibid. 25 f. : Kal rbv dvd^iov Soi/Xei^etv ovdafiQs &v <palri tis SovKov eTyai. 

" Ibid. 26-28. " Ibid, ss ff. 



lOO GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

superior/ The question of the possession of the higher virtues 
by slaves is recognized by him to be a difficult problem, for an 
affirmative answer breaks down his distinction of "natural" 
slave, yet it seems paradoxical to deny these virtues to him as a 
human being.^ Nor can the difficulty be avoided by positing for 
the slave a mere difference in degree of virtue, for the distinction 
between ruler and subject must be one of kind.^ In any event, 
temperance and justice are necessary even for good slave service.'' 
Aristotle therefore evades the difficulty, and begs the question by 
concluding that both master and slave must share in virtue, but 
differently, in accord with their respective stations.^ 

With this admission, he places slaves on a higher plane than 
free artisans, in that he denies virtue to such classes, since it cannot 
be produced in them, except as they are brought into contact with 
a master.^ He thus makes slavery a humanitarian institution, 
and the slave a real member of the family.'' But the admission 
most fatal to his theory is in agreeing that the sla,ve qua man may 
be a subject of friendship,^ and in advocating his manumission 
as a reward for good behavior. With this, the attempted dis- 
tinction between him, qua slave and qua man, utterly breaks down, 
and the existence of natural slaves is virtually denied.' Thus the 
great champion of slavery in the ancient world, by his very defense 
of it, repudiates its right as a natural institution. His actual 
conception of the relation is, indeed, not far from the ideal of Plato, 
a union for the best mutual service of rulers and ruled, in which 

' 1255J20-22. Barker {op. cit., p. 369, n. i) well observes that this is a challenge 
of the right of slavery, not an argument for it, and that it may have impressed his 
contemporaries so. Cf. Ruskin: "So there is only one way to have good servants; 
that is to be worthy of being well served" {Letters on Servants and Houses, Vol. 
XVII, S-18, App. V); cf. also pp. 520 ff. 

'1259626-28. ^ Ibid. ^6-^S. ^ Ibid. S9~4^- 

s i26oa2-4; 14-16; cf. 33 ff., which sets a limit on the slave's virtue. 

^ 1260039-42; 126062 f. Cf. Ruskin, Fors Clav., Ill, Letter 28, 14, on the virtue 
of the "menial" condition. 

^ Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 370. 

' N. Eth. 116161-10, especially 5: v M^** o''" SoCXos, oC/c i<TTi <pi\la irpbs airSv, g 5' 

AvOpUTTOS. 

9 Cf. his reference to Cleisthenes' gift of Athenian citizenship to many slaves; 
also his own emancipation, by will, of five of his own slaves (Diog. L. V. i. 9). 



ARISTOTLE loi 

the slave receives from his master a moral exchange value for his 
physical service.' 

There is a certain economic and moral truth, also, in the attitude 
of Aristotle toward slavery, that, as Ruskin has observed," higher 
civiHzation and culture must have a foundation of menial labor, 
and that the only justification of such a situation is in the assump- 
tion that some are naturally fitted for the higher, and some for the 
lower, sphere.^ Such modern laborers are not technically slaves, 
but Aristotle would insist that they are in a still worse condition, 
since they are deprived of the humanizing and moralizing influences 
of a rational master. The plausibility of such a contention would 
be well illustrated by the wretched condition of multitudes of 
negroes after the Civil War, as also by the hopeless life of a large 
portion of the modern industrial army. Moreover, the economic 
slavery of many of the common toilers today is less justifiable than 
the domestic slavery advocated by Aristotle, for it too often means 
a life of indolence and self-indulgence for the masters, instead of 
that Greek leisure which gave opportunity for higher activity.'* 

MONEY 

To the theory of money Aristotle makes a substantial contri- 
bution. He agrees with Plato that money found its origin in the 
growth of necessary exchange, which in turn resulted from an 
increased division of labor. Unlike Plato, however, he gives 
a detailed history of the development of money .^ Before its 
invention, all exchange was by barter.^ But with the growth of 
commerce, barter became difficult, and a common medium of 

' Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 370. 

^Sesame and Lilies, end of lecture on "Kings' Treasuries"; cf. Fors Clav. ,W11, 9 
(Vol. XXIX, 230); Mtm. PuL, 130, note; cf. Fors Clav., Ill (Vol. XXVII, 515 f.). 
Lett. 28, 13 ff., on the workman as a serf. 

3 Barker, op. cit., 368. 

t On the servile condition of the modern laborer, cf. Ruskin as above; a common 
idea also of Carlyle and of many modern economic writings. 

^ Pol. 1257331 ff., praised for its exactness and insight. Cf. Poehlmann, op. 
cit., 1, 585; Diihring (op. cit., p.23) belittles it. Newman {op. cit., II, 184) points 
to ^eviKUTipas as implying that the increased distance between buyers and sellers 
also caused the origin of money. 

^N. Eth. V. s. 1133626-28. 



102 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

exchange was agreed upon.' Something was chosen that was 
a commodity, having intrinsic value {otuiv xP'JO'i/^^ ciuro 6v) and 
that was easy to handle (cu/ieraxetpto'roj') in the business of life 
such as iron, silver, or other metal.^ It was first uncoined, defined 
merely by size and weight.^ Finally, to avoid the inconvenience, 
it was given a stamp (xapaKTi7p) representative of the quantity 
{arjfxelov tov Toarov) .* Thus arose the use of money as a convenience 
in necessary exchange, but once having arisen, it became the 
foundation of false finance and retail trade, which are pursued as 
a science of gain.^ All this accords well with the facts as now 
accepted, yet how utterly different is Aristotle's standpoint from 
that of the modem historian of economic institutions is revealed 
by his last statement, and indeed by the setting of the entire passage. 
His history of money is merely incidental to his purpose of showing 
that money is the parent and the very Hfe of the false finance 
which he decries. 

He is also more expHcit than the other Greek theorists on the 
function of money. He clearly recognizes the two functions noted 
by Plato,^ but he deals with them in a much more detailed manner. 
His discussion grows out of his theory of distributive justice pre- 
sented in the Ethics.'' Money was introduced as the exchangeable 
representative of demand (vrdWay fxa rrjs xP^^cis),^ since diverse 
products must be reduced to some common denominator.' It is 
thus a medium of exchange, acting as a measure of all inferior and 
superior values, by making them all commensurable (avfxl3\r]Ta) .^^ 

' Pol. 1257031-36; ^eviKur^pai yiip yevon^vqi rijs Po7)6ela% rQ elsdyeadai wv ivSeeii 
Kal iKirifjLireiv Siv iir\(bva,^ov, i^ avdyK-qi ij tov vofiLff/JuiTos ivopicrdri xP^^^'^i etc. 

'Ibid. 36-38; fififraxfipurrov could mean "malleability," but probably not, 
since he considers coinage to be an afterthought. 

3 Ibid. 38 f. * Ibid. 39-41. s 1257&1-5. 

' As a symbol of exchange {^(>fi^o\ov rijs iWayrjs) it is a medium of exchange 
and a measure of value (Rep. 371B; Laws 742A-B, 918B). 

^ V. 8. 1133018-1133628. ^1133029. ^Ibid.$-ig; 25; 27 f.; ii33iio,etc. 

" 1133019-22, 25 f.; 1133616; 22; ix. 116401 f.; Pol. i2sSbi-s, fiera^oX^i x^P**"' 
12570305. Stewart (op. cit., I, 416 ff.) thinks that the author meant to apply the 
corrective (diopduriKdv) function of justice also to money, in that it makes exchange 
more fair and uniform. As evidence, he points to N. Eth. 113 10 18 jEf. and 1 133019-22, 
where the functions of justice and money are defined in similar terms. Cf. also his 
interesting remarks on the dianemetic function, which prompts exchange and dis- 
tribution. 



ARISTOTLE 103 

The other important function of money recognized is as a guar- 
anty (iy'Yvr]Tr]s) of future exchange. It represents the abiding, 
rather than the temporary, need, and is thus a standard of deferred 
payments.^ The importance of money in the fulfihnent of these 
functions is great, in the opinion of Aristotle. The possibility of 
fair exchange, or indeed the very existence of organized society 
depends upon it.^ 

He is also clearer than Plato and Xenophon in his definition 
of the relation between money and wealth. He severely criticizes 
the current mercantilistic theory of his day, which identified 
wealth with a quantity of current coin {voiuayLaros ttXtjOos).^ He 
immediately follows this, however, with a more extended pres- 
entation of the opposite error of the Cynics, that money is mere 
trash (Xrjpos), depending for its value entirely upon convention 
{vofjicc). This theory, he points out, is based on the fact that, if 
money ceased to be recognized as legal tender, it would be useless; 
that it satisfies no direct necessity; and that one might starve 
like Midas, though possessed of it in superabundance."* 

Aristotle is here somewhat ambiguous as to his own attitude 
toward this doctrine. He fails to object that money does not 
necessarily become valueless when it ceases to be legal tender, and 
that a similar argument might be used to prove that clothing is 
not wealth. Instead, he uses the idea as a means of refuting the 
opposite error, which is more obnoxious to him, and on the basis 
of it he plunges into his discussion of the true and false finance^ 
This, together with a passage in the Ethics, might point to the con- 
clusion that he agreed with the doctrine of the Cynics on money. 
He states that it was introduced by agreement (/card (xvvdriKrjp); 
that, owing to this, it is called vbixtaixa, because its value is not 
natural but legal ; and that it may, at any time, be changed or made 

' 1133610-13. 

' Ibid. 15-18: oi/re 7d/3 hv fii] oiari^ dX\o7'^s KOivwviafiv, etc. 
^Pol. I2S7&8 f. 

4 1257610-18; for the theory of the Cynics, cf. infra, especially on Eryxias. Cf. 
Newman, op. cit., II, 188, note, and his reference to Macaulay's note on the margin 
of his edition of the Politics. 

5 1257&19 ff.; cf. the transitional sentence, 18, a slight hint that he acceDts the 
theory. 



I04 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

useless.^ In the light of other evidence, however, it seems probable 
that he here meant to emphasize merely the fact that the general 
agreement of a community is necessary before anything can be 
used as a symbol of demand. In stating that it may be made 
useless, he probably referred to money itself, rather than the 
material of it, which is, of course, true. His determined oppo- 
sition to the mercantile theory of money, as the basis of false 
finance, caused him to appear to subscribe to the opposite error. 
That, in actual fact, he did recognize the necessity of intrinsic 
value as an attribute of money is clearly evidenced by another 
passage, where he specifies it. He says that the material chosen 
as money was a commodity and easy to handle.^ This can mean 
only that it is subject to demand and supply, like any other object 
of exchange. This inference is substantiated by another passage, 
which declares that the value of money fluctuates, like that of other 
things, only not in the same degree.^ Moreover, in his enumeration 
of the diverse kinds of wealth, money is regularly included.'* It 
seems evident, therefore, that he did not fall a victim of either 
error, but recognized that, though money is only representative 
wealth, yet it is itself a commodity, whose value changes with 
supply and demand, Hke other goods.^ Since he understood the 
use of money as a standard of deferred payments, he also saw 
clearly the necessity of a stable monetary standard.^ 

Though Aristotle defines money as representative wealth, like 
Plato, he fails to apprehend its meaning as representative, and 
therefore productive capital.' In his eyes, such a use of money is 

^ N. Elh. V. 5. ii33fl29-3i; cf. ii33J2of., i^ ywoWcrews; cf. infra, where the 
psendo-Economica takes it for granted. 

= Pol. i2S7a36 f., cited on p. 102. 

3 N. Eth. V. 5. 1 1336 13 f.: ov ykp ad taov Svvarai • 8/xui di ^ovXerai ixiveiv fiaXKov. 

" Cf. p. 86, n. I, for passages. 

5 Blanqui {op. ciL, pp. 36, 88), Ingram {op. cit., p. 18), DuBois {op. cit., p. 51 and 
n. i), Zmavc {Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Staatswiss. [1902], pp. 76 f.), Palgrave's Dictionary 
(art. "Aristotle," p. 54), all admit this conclusion. Barker {op. cit., p. 380) says that 
the idea is hinted at. Souchon {op. cit., pp. 1 10 f.) accepts the other view, stating that 
this was his purpose, to show the folly of making merely imaginary goods the goal of 
all life. 

*Cf. N. Elh. V. 5. ii33Z»i3f. 

T Pol. 125765-8, and the whole of 12575; 125861-5. 



ARISTOTLE 105 

unjust and contrary to nature. He counts usury (roKicrjuos) to be 
a large part of that false finance, which turns money from its true 
function to be made an object of traffic/ Those who lend small 
sums at a high rate of interest are contemptible.^ and petty 
usury (17 o^oKoffTarLKr]) is the most unnatural and violent form of 
chrematistik, since it makes money reproduce money .^ It is to be 
observed, however, that his criticism is directed chiefly against 
petty interest, and that he does not appear to be thinking of 
"heavy loans on the security of a whole cargo, but of petty 
lendings to the necessitous poor, at heavy interest."'' Though 
his entire account of false finance exhibits an animus against 
the precious metals, as its basal cause, and as the source of indi- 
vidual and national degeneration ,s yet he clearly appreciates their 
necessary function in the state, and his hostihty is actually 
directed against the spirit of commercialism. Money, the means, 
has usurped the place of the end, until domestic and public 
economy alike have come to mean only the vulgar art of 
acquisition.^ 

The usual explanation of the fact that the Greek theorists 
failed to grasp the fact of the productive power of money is that 
loans were almost entirely for consumption, and hence seemed like 
an oppression of the poor."' This explanation, however, does not 
accord with the facts of Athenian life, at least for Aristotle's day. 
It is clear from the Private Orations of Demosthenes that there 
did exist an extensive banking and credit system for productive 

' 1258625. 

= N. Eth. 1 1 21634: KoL roKKTTal Kara /xt/cpd Koi iirl iroWip. Cf. Zell's translation. 

3 Pol. 1 2586 1-8; but cf. p. 39 on this point. The etymology should not be taken 
seriously. Ruskin cites Aristotle on this point. Cf. above, p. 39, n. 10. 

4 Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 385 and n. 2, where he criticizes Poehlmann for his idea 
that Aristotle "is attacking a great credit system," and "is enunciating a gospel of 
socialism." But cf. infra. 

sPol. 1257655. 

* Ibid. 33 ff.; for further discussion of chrematistik, cf. infra. 

1 Cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 49: "In Athens, the circulation of capital was inconsider- 
able, and money was not lent for productive purposes as often as for the purpose of 
reheving distress"; Souchon, op. cit., p. 93, though (pp. 106 f.) he recognizes the other 
side. 



io6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

purposes in the Athens of his time.^ Moreover, the hostility to 
interest and credit was not the rule, but the exception, for Demos- 
thenes and not the philosophers should be accepted as voicing 
pubHc opinion on this point. He considered credit to be of as 
much importance as money itself in the business world,^ and 
declared one who ignored this elementary fact to be a mere know- 
nothing.3 Indeed, the money-lenders were, to him, the very 
foundation of the prosperity of the state.'' The prejudice of Plato 
and Aristotle represent merely the exceptional attitude of the 
pure moraHst, who because of the questionable tactics of m^oney- 
lenders, and the injustice and greed in some phases of contemporary 
business Hfe, became critics of all money-making operations.^ 

EXCHANGE 

Aristotle, in both the Politics and the Ethics, deals at con- 
siderable length with the subject of exchange.^ He states that it 
arose out of the natural situation (Kara 4)vat.v) and defines this 
as "the fact that men had more of some commodities and less of 
others than they needed. "^ At first, all exchange was by barter 
(dXXa7i7) and there was no trading except for specific need.^ The 
development of an international commerce of import and export 
was made possible by the invention of money. It is this significant 
fact that furnishes the fine of division between the old natural 

' Cf. Paley and Sandys ed., especially Or. xxxvi; Isoc. Trapeziticus; Boeckh, 
op. cit., I, i6off.; V. Brants, "Les operations de banque dans la Grece antique," 
Le Museon, I, 2, 196-203; Koutorga, Le trapezites, (Paris, 1859); cf. also E. Meyer, 
Kleine Schriflen. 

^ Or. XX. 25. 

■3 Or. xxxvi, 44: «' Si toGt'' dyvoeis, 8ti vLcttis a<f>opy.ri tQv vacrQiv ijrl fieylffTi] Trpbs 
XpillJ^TLffixbv, Trap Ay dyvo'jfiffeias. 

^Ibid. 57 ff. 

s Cf. p. 105, n. 7, on Souchon; E. Boehm von Bawerk {Capital und Capitalzins, 
[1900] I, 17 f. says: "Die Geschaftsleute und Praktiker standen sicher auf der zins- 
freundlichen Seite." He accounts for the fact that almost the only passages against 
interest are in the philosophers by the inference that to uphold interest was super- 
fluous, and to oppose it was useless. Poehlmann exaggerates both the degree of 
credit operations, and the prejudice of Aristotle. 

* For the Greek terms, cf. p. 40. 

T Pol. 1257015-17 ^ Ibid. 22-28; N. Eth. v. 5. 1133626-28. 



ARISTOTLE 107 

economy and the era of commerce and finance, when exchange 
and money have become the tools for unlimited individual enrich- 
ment.^ 

His theory of exchange and just price grows out of his appH- 
cation to exchange of his definition of corrective justice, as a mean 
between two extremes of injustice.^ Trade is just when each party 
to it has the exact equivalent {laov) in value with which he began. 
Exchange is a mean between profit and loss, which themselves 
have no proper relation to its true purpose. ^ This does not mean 
that the traders must receive the same in return (to avTtTrerrovdds 
Kar' 'uroTTjTa), but an equivalent, or proportional requital (to avTi- 
T€Trovd6s Kar' d;'aXo7tai') .'' It is this fact of proportional requital 
that makes exchange, and indeed human society, possible.^ The 
meaning is illustrated by a proportion in which the producers bear 
the same relation to each other as their products.^ By joining 
means and extremes, the exchangers are brought to a basis of pro- 
portional equahty (to KaTO. ttjv avdXoyiav laov).'' Thus is deter- 
mined how many shoes, the shoemaker's product, must be given for 
a house, the builder's product, and the prices of the two commodi- 
ties are justly settled, with relation to each other.^ It is very 
necessary for just exchange, that such proportional equality be 
effected before the requital or actual transfer takes place. Other- 
wise one will gain both superiorities (dju^orepas ras vTrepoxa-s), and 

^ Pol. 12570305. These two periods of oiKovofxiK-fi and xP'niJ^'''t<rTiKij correspond 
well to the German terms N aturalwirtschaft and Geldwirtschaft. Kautz (pp. ciL, p. 137, 
n. 4) says that this antithesis was about as clear to Aristotle as it is to modems. For 
the terms, cf. infra. 

^N. Eth. V. 4. 1132611-1133628; cf. also under value and money, above; cf. 
Mag. mor. i. Z2)- 1193^19 ff- 

3 1132611-20; cf. Rep. 369B-C; 370B, for a similar idea of Plato. 

4 1132633. 

^ Ibid. 32-34, especially t$ avTiTroieiv dvoKoyov avfitiivei i] ir6Xts; 1133&6; 17 f.; 
Stewart, op. cit., I, 449. 

^ 113335-10, cited on p. 83, nn. 2-7; cf. Etid. Eth. vii. 10. 1243628-38. 

7 ii330iof. 

* Cf. p. 83, n. 7. The less valuable product must make up in quantity what 
it lacks in quahty. The proportion thus becomes, yewpy6s : ffKVTorbno^ : : x pairs 
of shoes : a quantity of grain of equal value (1133^32 f.). Cf. other methods of 
statement, 113364 f., 22 f.; Stewart, op. ciL, I, 453 f. 



io8 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

equality becomes impossible,^ since the cost of production of things 
is very diverse.^ Indeed, the arts themselves could not exist, 
unless the advantage to the consumer were similar in quantity 
and quality to the cost to the producer .^ 

The common element in diverse products that makes them 
commensurable is need, or demand (17 xP^ta), for reciprocal services/ 
But on the basis of the need of the moment, or under the regime of 
barter, just exchange would be practically impossible, since the 
concrete needs of A and B, at any given moment, are not Hkely to 
correspond. In such a case, exchange would be a gross disregard 
of the cost of production. This has been avoided by the intro- 
duction of money as a substitute for demand,s a symbol of general, 
rather than specific need. Thus just exchange becomes possible, 
for money, as the representative of general need, is always equally 
in demand by all, and, as the common denominator of value, it 
alone renders it possible for proportional amounts of each product 
to be exchanged.^ 

Aristotle's basal premise in this theory of fair exchange, that 
unless an equal quantum of value is received by each party, one 
must lose what the other gains, has been severely criticized by 
Menger.7 He objects that the determining consideration in 
exchange is not the equal value of exchanged goods. On the con- 

' 1133^)1-4. 

* 1133011 f.; 16-18: eripiov Kai oiiK la-uv. Cf. i?e/>. 369C, 370B; Ar. Po/. 1261022 
for a similar idea. Stewart {op. cit., I, 464 f.), following Jackson, interprets, on the 
basis of 1132033, the buyer's two advantages to be, if he buys too cheaply, the part 
of the article still unpaid for, and the money he should have paid for it. Cf. ibid. 
pp. 455-67 for other interpretations. 

3 1133015 f.: dvTipovvTo yap &v, el /jlt] <5> iwolei rh ttoiovv ko.! 6(rov Kal olov, Kal rb 
TrdtTxeivfTfaffxtrovTOKaiTocrovTovKalToiovTov. I follow Jackson, note, pp. 97 f.;Rassow, 
Forsch., p. 18 (Peters' trans., p. 154, n. 2), in accepting this difficult passage as an 
integral part of its context, and in interpreting it as above, though aside from the 
context, it would hardly bear this meaning. Stewart {op. cit., I, 455 fif.) thinks it is 
an interpolation or note, referring merely to the mechanical fact in the arts that 
material is receptive to the impression. 

•* 1133018 f.; 25-28; 113356-8; 19 f.; d. Rep. 2>6()C. ' 

5 1 133019-29; cf. Stewart's excellent comments, op. cit., I, 459 ff. 

* 1133&14-16; 20-22: Todro yap iravra Troiei avufiirpa; e.g., if a house is equal 
to five minae and a bed is worth one, five beds equal one house (23-26). 

' Handworterbuch der Staatswwissenschajl, art. "Geld," 2d ed., Bd. IV, 82 f. 



ARISTOTLE 109 

trary, men trade only when they expect to better their economic 
condition. ''Um ihres economischen Vortheils willen, nicht um 
gleiches gegen gleiches hinzugeben; sondern um ihre Bediirfnisse 
so vollstandig als unter den gegebenen Verhaltnissen dies zulassig 
ist zu befriedigen." Each gives the other only so much of his own 
goods as is necessary to secure this end, and it is this competition 
in open market that fixes prices. Barker^ also criticizes Aristotle 
on the ground that he takes no account of demand in his theory of 
just price. He states that if the cost of production were the only 
element to be considered, the doctrine might be correct, but with 
the entrance of demand, one may buy at a low price and sell at an 
advance without injustice. 

Of course, the bald theory that, in exchange, one necessarily 
loses what the other gains, is untenable. Yet there is still some- 
thing to be said for Aristotle. He recognized, as well as Menger, 
that exchange, as pursued by the retailers, did not square with his 
idea of just price. This is the very reason why he objects to retail 
trade. He is presenting exchange, not as it is, but as he believes 
it should be pursued. His doctrine, in a nutshell, is that the pri- 
mary purpose of exchange is profit, defined as economic satisfaction 
of mutual needs, not profit in dollars and cents. The equality that 
he seeks, too, is not so much an equality of value in obols and 
drachmas, but that each shall receive an equal quantum of eco- 
nomic satisfaction. This is the true standpoint at bottom, and 
when, as is common, the mere purpose of money-making domi- 
nates in the pursuit of exchange, the profit is too often at the 
expense of the other party. Such exchange certainly does not 
mean economic advance or general prosperity. It merely makes 
possible an increase in the inequalities of wealth and poverty. 
There is much of fallacy in the prevalent idea that business neces- 
sarily increases the wealth of a state. Ruskin, though Kke Aris- 
totle extreme and one-sided in his view, struck at the root of this 
error. He also declared that the result of exchange should be 
advantage, not profit, and repudiated the idea that the mere fact 
that goods change hands necessarily means general enrichment.^ 

' Op. ciL, p. 384. 

' Cf. citations above, p. 42, n. 7, and p. 44, n. 2. Cf. DuBois, op. ciL, p. 46. 



no GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

The central truth in their protest needed to be spoken, though both 
erred in not sufficiently recognizing that the labor involved in 
exchange creates an added time and place value, and therefore 
has a right to be called productive. They also failed to observe 
the fact of the necessary risk involved in the business of exchange, 
which should be repaid with a fair additional profit. For the 
cornering of markets and the manipulation of prices, for the sake 
of individual enrichment, modem economists and statesmen, with 
Aristotle and Ruskin, are fast coming to have only words of protest. 

Moreover, contrary to Barker's assertion, demand, as an ele- 
ment of price, is prominent throughout this discussion of Aristotle. 
He objects, however, to allowing the effect of demand to overcome 
unduly the cost of production, thus causing inequality and injustice. 
According to his idea, each receives the equivalent in value of what 
he gives, in the sense that it is a resultant of the proportionate 
influence of both cost and need.' We may, nevertheless, observe 
an excellent example of inconsistency in the fact that, despite his 
insistence upon just exchange, he appears to treat monopoly as 
a legitimate principle of finance for both men and states,* though 
his intention in the passage may have been to discuss actual con- 
ditions, rather than to ideahze. 

Naturally, the philosopher shows no concern for a tax on 
imports as a means of building up the industry and commerce of 
his state, since he is especially desirous of limiting both. How- 
ever, he is not blind to the advantages of export and import trade 
for a nation ,3 but would regulate them with an ethical, rather than 
an economic purpose.'' His doctrine of exchange as a form of 
production has been discussed above, ^ and will be touched upon 
further in the following pages. His general criticism of what he 
terms ''false finance" or " chrematistik " {xpntJ^o-rKXTiKri) remains 
for more extended treatment. 

We have seen that he recognizes the necessity of a hmited form 
of exchange, free from the purpose of gain, and considers such 

' Cf. Haney, op. ciL, p. 48. ^ Pol. 125902 f.; 33-35. ^iy (vii). 6. 1327025-30. 
^ Rhet. i. 4. 7 : irepl tQiv eiffayoij.ivun' Kai i^ayo/xivuv, as among the subjects for 
a statesman's consideration; cf. also 11. 
5 Pp. 89 and notes. 



ARISTOTLE ill 

trading to be natural and in accord with that interdependence 
which nature demands/ He calls it the very bond of the social 
organization,* and even considers international commerce to be 
necessary for the prosperity of a state. ^ We have also seen that 
he goes so far as to advise the rich in a democracy to give the poor 
a start in business/ but that exchange, in its prevalent form, is 
to him a method of cheatery, in which one gains what the other 
loses.^ " 

On the basis of this prejudice, he builds his argument for 
domestic economy (oUoponLKr)) as opposed to false finance.*^ We 
will therefore consider his entire theory of this relation at this 
point, for the term "chrematistik," though more inclusive than 
exchange (iieTa^XrjTLKr]) , has trade in either goods or money (/caTny- 
Xlkt}) as its predominating element, and the two terms are often 
used by him as synonyms. He employs the word xP'JMaTto'TtKi; 
in several significations — usually of unnatural finance, or the art 
of money-making by exchange of goods or money; sometimes as 
synonymous with KTTjn/ciy, the general term for the entire business 
of acquisition, including both natural and unnatural finance ;7 
again, of the natural finance, which is a part of domestic economy. 
His confusion results partly from his futile attempt to separate 
landed property from general industry and commerce. 

His main contention is that there is a vital distinction between 
domestic economy, whether of householder (ot/cow/xos) or states- 
man, and the art of acquisition or finance, as usually pursued. 

^Pol. 1257528-30; vi (iv). 4. 129104-6; I29i5i9f.; vii (vi).;. i32ia6, all seem, 
to take retail and wholesale trade in the state for granted. But it is not named in the 
list of necessary callings in the ideal state, 1328^24 ff.; 5 ff.; cf. also 13290402?. Of 
course the citizens are not to engage in it (1328&37 ff.). 

' N. Eth. V. 8. 1132&4 f.; 1133027; all of chap. 8; cf. above, on just exchange. 

3 Pol. iv (vii). 6. 1327025-28. 

^ vii (vi). 5. 1320039: d(popiJ.riv ifiiroplas. Cf. p. 96. 

s Cf . discussion above of just exchange. 

' Pol. i. chaps. 8-1 1. Ruskin does not seem to have used the term "chrematistik,'' 
and he has no reference to this passage, though, as seen above, he has much to say in 
the same general spirit. 

"> Pol. 1 25601 1 f . ; cf . p. 40 on Plato's terms for trade. For the word xRVfJ^arurriKr^, 
cf. Rep. 415E, contrasted to soldiers; Gorg. 477E, the art that frees from poverty; 
45 2C; Euthyd. 304C, of the Sophists; Xen. Econ. ii. 18, where no prejudice is implied. 



112 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

The primary function of the art of finance is to provide, while that 
of domestic economy is to use what is provided/ There are, 
however, many methods of acquisition (/crryri/cT;; xP^Maricrn/CT;), 
some of which truly belong to the sphere of domestic economy.^ 
The provision of all that is furnished by nature herself, as neces- 
sary to human existence, then, if not already at hand (vrapx^t-v) , 
belongs properly to domestic economy.^ It both uses and pro- 
vides genuine wealth, such as is limited in amount {ovk aTretpos) 
yet sufficient for independence {avTapKeia) and the good hfe.'* 
But the use of such wealth is its chief business.^ The other kind 
of acquisition, which is unHmited, or chrematistik, is contrary to 
nature, and is not in the province of domestic economy."^ This 
unnatural finance, since it deals chiefly in the exchange of money 
and other commodities, may be termed retail trade (/caTrr/Xt/cT;) J 
Though itself false, it is a logical outgrowth (Kara \byov) of the 
true form of exchange that is limited to actual needs^ as a result of 
the invention of money.' But the real reason for its pursuit is to 
satisfy an evil and unlimited desire for material things." It 
produces money merely through the exchange of money (Sict 
XPVl^o.TCOp ju€Ta/3oX^s," and its beginning and end is unHmited 
currency." 

' Pol. i. 8. 1256010-12; but cf. N. Eth. i. i. 109409: riKos oIkovohikti^ Sk tXoOtos; 
and Pol. iii. 4. 1277624 f.: iirel koX oUovoula er^pa a.v5p6i Kal yvvaiKbv rod fikv yAp 
KTaffdai Tfjs 5k <f)v\dTTtiv tpyov icrrlv. An American economist would hardly make 
the latter distinction. Newman {op. cit., II, 166) thinks that in these two passages he 
states the actual condition, but cf . infra, where Aristotle admits a degree of acquisition 
in domestic economy. 

^ 1256015 ff. 3 1256&26-39. 

* Ibid. 30-37; cf. above on the definition of wealth. 

s 1 2580 19 ff. He would combat the common idea that the first business of eco- 
nomics is to provide unlimited revenue (1259035; 1 25401 f.) 

* 1256640-42; 125704 f.; 17 f.; cf. £2<«f. £//i. iii. 4. 123206-9. 

' 125761 f.; 9 f . * 1257018 f., 28-30; 1257619 f.; 31 ff. 

912570315. Poehlmann {op. cit., I, 599) cites Schaeffle, Bau und Leben des 
sozialen Korpers, 1, 256, that this analysis of the change from natural to capitalistic 
economy holds "im Kern die ganze moderne Kritik des Kapitals," but the standpoint 
of the two is essentially different. 

" 1 2580 1- 14. Extreme desire demands superfluity {virep^oX-rj) . 

" 1257620 f. " Ibid. 23 ff. 



ARISTOTLE 113 

This false form of acquisition is often confused with necessary- 
exchange, because both deal with money/ Their aims, however, 
are quite diverse. The latter treats the accumulation of money 
(av^-qats) as a means, while the former treats it as the supreme end 
of life.^ In fine, then, Aristotle teaches that necessary chrematis- 
tik has to do with the supply and use of Hfe's necessities, is natural 
(Kara (l)vaLP or oiKaoTdrr]) and Hmited,^ its prime function being 
the proper disposal of products.'' It is an honorable pursuit,^ 
dependent chiefly upon fruits and animals,*^ and involves a practical 
knowledge of stock (Krrjvr)), farming, bee-culture, trees, fish, and 
fowl.'' The false finance, on the other hand, is unnatural, dis- 
honorable, and enriches at the expense of another.* Its chief 
business is commerce (ifjLiropia) , including sea- trade {vavKK-qpla), 
inland trade {(i>opTr]yia), and shop-trade, {irapaaTacns).^ It also 
comprises usury {toklcixos) and liired labor, both skilled and 
unskilled {jiiadapvla rj p.ev T(hv ^avaixroiv rex^oiP ij be drexv^v).^'^ 

Aristotle also distinguishes a third type of finance {xpwo-- 
TiCTLKT}) which shares in the nature of both those above described. 
It deals with natural resources and their products, but with things 

' Ibid. 35 f. The two uses overlap (^iraXXdrret). 
''Ibid. 36-39. 3 I2s8ai6-i8. 

*Ibid. 19 ff. The other function is secondary {vireperiKri). 
^Ibid. 39 f. . * Ibid. 37 f. 7 1258&12-21. 

^ Ibid. I f.; cf. 1256040 ff., where nainiXela is opposed to avr6(pvTov exov(7i tt/i' 
ipya(rlav. 

' 1258520-23. 

" Ibid. 25-27. This contrasted yet overlapping relation between the two kinds 
of finance is well represented by Haney, op. cit., 46, by two circles, as follows: 




Cf. also Ashley, op. cit., p. 340, for a synopsis of the divisions of KT-qriK-fj. 



114 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

which, though useful, are not fruits (dKcipTrijua) , such as wood- 
cutting (vXoToula) and mining in all its branches (jucTaXXeurtKi?).^ 
The meaning may be best apprehended if, with Ashley,* we observe 
that oiKovoixiKT] is characterized, not only by direct acquisition of 
nature's products, but also by a personal use of the same, while the 
unnatural finance has neither of these qualities.' The medium 
kind, then, is Hke the former, in that it involves direct acquisition 
of natural resources, but like the latter, in that it does not acquire 
for directly personal use, but for exchange. It consists, therefore, 
not so much in the arts themselves, as in the exchange that is based 
on them. 

In the discussion of the so-called false finance, Aristotle thus 
reveals a markedly hostile attitude to any extensive development 
of exchange. The middleman is considered to be a parasite and 
necessarily degenerate by the very fact of his business.^ As seen 
above, his criticism was doubtless directed chiefly against the mean 
and dishonest spirit in the actual retail trade and money-loaning 
of his day."* Yet here also, just as in the Ethics passage above 
discussed, his prejudice blinds him to the fact that exchangers may 
be real producers, and that, after all, even the alleged false finance 
is not unlimited, but that it is distinctly bounded by economic 
demand.5 Still worse, he includes hired labor of every kind under 
unlimited acquisition, merely because it has some of the other 
qualities of that type of economy, though it certainly does not 
tend to unlimited enrichment even as much as agriculture.*^ How- 
ever, he should be given credit of being a forerunner of the modern 

' 1258^27-33. 

' Op. cit., pp. 333 ff., more satisfactory than Jowett's idea that the intermediate- 
ness consists either in exchange for money of the direct products of the earth, or else 
that wood-cutting and mining are themselves the intermediate form; or than New- 
man's {op. cit., II, 202 f.) theory that it consists in the fact that in this type wealth is 
sought, not from fruits or animals, but from things, just as exchange seeks wealth from 
other men or from money, as Ashley shows. However, two questions still remain 
unanswered: why Aristotle has three forms in chap. 11 and only two elsewhere; and 
why the terms, dfcdpirw;', wood-cutting, and mining are so prominent, if their relation 
to the thought is only incidental. 

3 Pol. iv (vii). 1328639 ff.; 1327029-31. 

* This was a common Greek feeling (Dem. xxv. 46). 

5 But he seems to recognize it elsewhere {N. Eth. v. 8). 

« Cf. DuBois, op. ciL, p. 48. 



ARISTOTLE 



"5 



humanitarian economy, which insists that the final goal of all 
economics should be proper consumption, and that acquisition 
must be relegated to its true place as a means, the supreme end 
being human welfare.^ 



POPULATION 



Aristotle exhibits an interest in the problem of population in 
relation to subsistence in his criticism of Plato for limiting the 
amount of property and making it indivisible, while failing to 
provide against a too high birth-rate.^ He states the principle 
that, if property is to be limited, there must be a corresponding 
Hmitation on the increase of population,^ and that the let-alone 
policy must be followed by increased poverty." He therefore 
criticizes the Spartan law, for encouraging the largest possible 
families.5 It is evident, however, that, as in the case of Plato, his 
interest in the problem is prompted chiefly by a moral and political 
motive. It arises merely from his desire to hmit individual 
acquisition, in a small state, artificially constructed, and is to him 
in no sense a question of world food-supply.^ 

DISTRIBUTION 

In the Ethics passage discussed above,7 Aristotle approaches 
a scientific theory of distribution. He observes that just distri- 
bution will be a mean between two extremes of unfairness.^ UnHke 
some moderns, however, he reahzes that this will not mean 
equal shares for all. There must be the same ratio between the 
persons, or services, and the things.^ In the "mutual exchange of 

' Cf. the entire criticism of chrematistik, and especially 12S7&40-42, the contrast 
between f^y and eC ^v. On this point, cf. above, pp. 109 f. and 87 ff. Zmavc {Zeit- 
schrift, etc., p. 52), rightly states that even Adam Smith made his economic theory a 
subordinate part of his practical philosophy. 

^ An unfair criticism, as seen above. ^ 1265^6-12. 

i Pol. 1266&8-14; iv (vii). 1335622 ff. s 1270040 ff. 

* Cf . iv (vii). 4. 1326025-30, especially, tuv yovv 8oKovcrQv TroXiTeveadat koXws 
oidefilav opQuev odcrav dveifiivrjv irpbs rb TrX^dos. Cf. entire chapter. 

'ii3o6ff.; cf. under value, money, and exchange. The terms are Stavo/x-i^ or 
i] rQ)v koivCjv diavo/j.^. 

* 1131011. 

9 Ibid. 21 : Kal 7] avrr; (arai Iffdr-qs, oTs Kal iv oh. Cf. above, pp. 55 f. and 60 f., on 
Plato's idea of equality; cf. infra for further comments on Aristotle. 



ii6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

services," the law must be proportional requital.^ In other words, 
each should receive an equivalent to what he contributes.^ Dis- 
tribution must thus proceed according to a certain standard of 
worth or desert (Kar' a^lav tlvcl).^ If the individuals are unequal, 
their shares cannot be equal, and it is a proUfic source of dispute, 
whenever equals receive unequal shares, or unequals receive equal.'' 
On the other hand, Aristotle recognizes that it is a difficult matter 
to determine this standard, by which just distribution is to proceed.^ 
At this point, again, he shows clearly that his paramount interest 
in the problem is not economic. He names four possible stand- 
ards — freedom, wealth, noble birth, and general excellence — all 
of which are distinctly poUtical in their reference.*^ 

Though he insists on a fair distribution of wealth to the citizens, 
he can hardly be said to exhibit as much interest in the welfare 
of the common people as does Plato. He had not a very ideal 
conception of human nature in general. He would have thought 
it not only impracticable, but undesirable to give his doctrine of 
leisure any extensive appHcation. As seen above, he includes all 
hired labor under false finance, and relegates all industry, including 
agriculture, to the slaves and strangers. The life of mechanic 
and commercial alike is to him ignoble.'' He advises that measures 
be taken to hold the workers in submission and obedience.^ His 
unfair criticism of Plato's Republic, however, on the ground that 
it fails to emphasize sufficiently the welfare of the parts of the state, 
and that it does not distinguish clearly enough the status of the 
commons, reveals a spirit that does not entirely disregard the 
masses.' His demand that no citizen shall lack subsistence," his 

' 1132^32 f.; cf. pp. 107 ff. and notes for a more detailed discussion, and for 
Greek expressions. 

* 1131627-32: ij diavofiT] ((TTai Kard. rbv \6yov rbv avrbv 8virep ex°^'^'- ""pdj S.Wr]\a 
TO. eiffevexO^vra. Cf. Mag. mor. i. 33. 11936365. Stewart (op. cit., I, 432) says that 
the expression i) tQv koivQv diavofiri, must mean more than distribution by some cen- 
tral authority, for the most important form of it is the distribution of wealth, oper- 
ating under economic laws that regulate wages and profits. 

3 1131^24-26. ^ Ibid.; Pol. iii. 1280^7 ff.; 1282623 ff. 

* Ibid. 22-24. For Plato, cf. pp. 55 f. ^ Cf. above, pp. 113, and 93 ff. on labor, 
s Ibid. 26-29. * -f^^- ^- 4- 126262 f, 

» 1264011-17; 36-38; 1264611-13, all discussed above under Plato. 
"iv (vii). 1 3 2964 1 ff. 



ARISTOTLE ii? 

« 

provision of the sussitia for all," his insistence that, in the market, 
mere economic self-interest shall not rule,^ and his emphasis on the 
importance of a strong middle class in the state,^ all show that, in 
the interest of the perpetuity of the state at least, he had some 
regard for the economic well-being of all classes. It would be 
wrong to infer from his suggestions for the aid of the masses in 
a democracy, that he would offer similar advice for the ideal state. 
Moreover, his chief emphasis in the passage is upon the idea of 
Mill, that mere hand-to-mouth help of the poor is wasteful, and 
that what is needed is to aid them to become economically inde- 
pendent.4 Nevertheless his suggestion does show that he saw 
clearly the relation that exists in a democracy between the eco- 
nomic condition of the masses and the stability of the state.s He 
says that the genuine friend of the people (oKv^ivw drjuoriKos) will 
see that the masses are not very poor, for the best assurance of the 
abiding welfare of the state is the solid prosperity of the great 
majority of the population. He therefore advises the rich to con- 
tribute money for furnishing plots of land or capital for small 
business enterprises to the needy poor.^ However, while the 
advice seems, on the surface, to favor the commons, it is really 
a prudent suggestion to the upper classes, appeahng to their selfish 
interest to avoid by this method the danger of a discontented pro- 
letariat."' Nevertheless, the general economic attitude of Aristotle 
would warrant including him, with the other Greek thinkers, in 
the statement of Roscher: "Die hellenische Volkswirtschaftslehre 
hat niemals den grossen Fehler begangen, uber dem Reichtume die 
Menschen zu vergessen, und tiber der Vermehrung der Men- 
schenzahl, der Wohlstand der einzelnen gering zu achten."^ 

' 1271029-37; 1272012-21. 

^ N. Eth. V. chaps. 4-5, discussed above. ' Pol vi (iv), 1295635 ff, 

^v (vi). 1320033 ff.; cf. pp. 95 f.; cf. especially 35: Texya<rriov oZv 6irws tv 
evtropLa -yivono xp^j/ios, and 1 26763 ff. on the insatiety of the masses. He believed 
hat the state doles for mere consumption aggravated the evil— a very sane doctrinet 
which our city charity organizations are prone to overlook. 

s Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 339 f., on this passage. 

^ Cf. above, n. 4 above, and pp. 95 f. 

7 1320036: iirel 5^ crvntp^pei tovto Kal tols €v-rr6pois, and 34, tovto ykp airiov roO 
Ij.ox0r)pa.v thai ttjv Sr)iwKpaTiap; viz., undue poverty of the masses. 

* Op. cit., p. 7; cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 600, on this point. 



Ii8 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Aristotle makes clear his attitude toward the institution of 
private property and other related questions, both in his criticism 
of other thinkers, and in his own positive suggestions for the ideal 
state. Through his objections to the systems of Phaleas and 
Plato, he has acquired the reputation of being the great defender 
of private property in Greece. We shall see the extent to which 
this interpretation of him is correct. Our consideration of his 
theory may be summarized under certain topics which are funda- 
mental to the problem of distribution. 

He admits that the doctrine of economic equality may have 
some wisdom in it.' The attempt to equalize possessions may 
tend slightly to prevent civic discord.' Yet it is liable to arouse 
sedition on the part of the exploited classes,^ and such relief meas- 
ures will satisfy the masses only for a time, for they are notoriously 
insatiate,-* In his opinion, therefore, the saner remedy is equalization 
of desires rather than of property ,s which must be realized by proper 
education and a right constitution, whereby the upper classes 
shall not oppress, and the masses shall be held in check. We have 
here still a valid argument against the more radical type of social- 
ism. It is suggestive of the modern doctrine of private property 
as a public trust,*^ and presents clearly the antithesis between the 
attitude of Greek thinkers and that of the modern social democracy.'^ 

Aristotle argues further that equalization of property would be 
powerless to prevent anything more than the merely petty crimes, 
for the grossest ones are the result of inordinate desire, rather than 
of inability to provide Ufe's necessities.^ Moreover, there are 
many other natural inequalities of Hfe what would remain to arouse 
discontent.' This is a sensible observation that has often been 

' Pol. ii. 7. 1266614-25, as advocated by Phaleas; cf. above. Cf. infra for Aris- 
totle's advocacy of equality in landed property. 

' 1267037-39. 3 Ihid. 39-41- 

^ 126761-4; vii (vi). 1320031; cf. p. 117 on this idea. He does not consider 
the rise in the cost of living. 

5 1266628-30. * Cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 45. 

7 Aristotle, like Plato, strongly emphasizes education as a great cure for the ills 
of the state (1310015 ff.). It should be common to all citizens, and be publicly 
supervised (1336022 ff.). 

* 1267013-17. ' 1266638-126702. 



ARISTOTLE 119 

overlooked by modern radical socialists, though its author might 
have objected further that such personal diversities would also 
render an abiding equality of property impossible. His previous 
argument, however, that immorahty and crimes are the result of 
inordinate desire, rather than of economic need, might be answered 
today by the results of investigations upon the relation of wages 
to morality. 

The doctrine of communistic equahty, as preached by some 
theorists in fifth- and fourth-century Greece, and as satirized by 
Aristophanes,^ had no appeal for Aristotle. It was, to him, merely 
a thinly veiled individuaHsm. He saw through the selfish parti- 
sanship of both oligarchs and democrats, and recognized that all 
men are poor judges in matters that concern themselves.^ The 
excessive individualism of the radical democrat of his day, which 
permitted the majority to confiscate the property of the minority 
in the name of a false equality, was as hateful to him as it was to 
Plato .^ As seen above, he insisted that economic or political 
equahty should not be demanded, except on the basis of equahty 
of service.'' Exploitation by the radical democracy was, in his 
eyes, as bad as the rule of a tyrant,^ and the ruthless individualism 
of the classes was no better.^ Like Plato, he would oppose to both 
of these the common interest, and would unite both masses and 
classes in the aim to reaHze the highest moral Ufe for the individual 
through the state.^ He refuted the Sophist's theory of social con- 
tract and of justice as a mere convention.^ As Stewart has observed 
he realized that "more powerful causes than the mere perception 

^ Ecdesiazusae. Poehlmann {op. cii., I, 403) argues that such ideas were wide- 
spread in Greece. 

' Pol. iii. 9. 1280314-21: (rx^Sbv 5' ol irXetcrrot (paOXoi Kpiral irepl tGjv oIkuwv. Cf. 
7-31, his discriminating remarks on equality in general. 

3 vii (vi). s; iii. 10; cf. Haney op. ciL, p. 45. 

* Cf. above on fair exchange; also p. 116 and notes. s vi (iv). 4. 129234-38. 

^ vii (vi). 3. 131861-5, especially ol di KparoOvres ov5iv (ppovTl^ovcnv^ cf. iii. 9. 
12800, especially 22-30, on the false idea of equality on both sides. 

^i. i: f^oK TToXirtKiv; 1 28003 1 ff.; 1252630 f.; cf. all of chap. 9 to 1281010. 

* i28oiio-i2, against Lycophron; cf., above, p. 16; koI 6 v6p.oi (rvv0riK7j Kal 
.... iyyvTjTTjs dXXTjXots tQv diKaiup, dXX' oix "^"s Troieiv ayadois koI diKaiovs Toi>s 
iroXlras. 



120 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

of material advantage brought men into social union and keep 
them in it."' Each citizen, he held, is not his own master, but all 
belong to the state. Each is a member {ixbpiov) of the social body, 
and the concern of each is naturally relative to the good of the 
whole.'' 

Aristotle's further criticisms, of minor significance, on the sugges- 
tions of Phaleas and Plato for equality of possessions are as follows : 
They have taken no precautions to regulate population accordingly .^ 
They set no proper limit between luxury and penury for individual 
possessions." Plato's system is not thoroughgoing, since it allows 
inequalities in personal property, a criticism also vaHd against his 
own proposals.^ Phaleas failed to include personal property in his 
system of equality.'' Such strictures seem to proceed from his 
pedantic desire to criticize inconsistency. However, he may have 
apprehended more clearly than did Plato the danger of the press 
of poverty that must eventually result from a system like that of 
the Laws J 

Our author is also strong in his denial of either the wisdom or 
feasibility of the communism in the Republic.^ He argues that 
Plato's proposed family communism is based upon the false prin- 
ciple that a state must be composed of Hke elements,' and shows 
that it must fail to accompHsh its end of harmony, for Plato's 
"all" must mean all collectively.'" But this must result, if real- 
ized, in a decrease of devotion," and thus in a lack of the very har- 
mony sought," since one of the chief sources of attachment in the 
world is exclusive ownership.'^ He would deem such a measure, 

• Op. cit., II, 304. 

2 Pol. V (viii). I. 1337027-30, a remarkable passage, suggestive of Plato and of 
St. Paul's analogy of the body. Aristotle paints vividly the antithesis between 
political and economic equality, whereby there grows up a state within a state (12956- 
13 ff.), for he beheves with the author of Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1242a, that man is not only 
a TToXtTtKiv, but also an oUovofJiLKdv f<J)oj'. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 276 ff. 

3 126668-14; 1265038-42; unfair to Plato, as seen above. 
M266624-28; 1265028-38. 512656225. 6 126769-13. 
' Cf. his criticism of the Spartan system, 1270040 ff. 

* On its wisdom, cf. infra; on its feasibility, cf. 1263629: irdixnav adiiparos. 
» 1261C16-1261615. " 32-35- 

" 1261630-32; 24-28. " 126264-24. '3 22-24. 



ARISTOTLE I2i 

therefore, more fitting for the third class, since a weakening of 
their ties of affection might result in greater submission to the 
rulers,^ another striking evidence of the gulf that separates the 
ideal of Greek poHtical thought from the spirit of modern democracy. 

Moreover, he considers Plato's assumption that a state, to be 
a unity, must be devoid of all private interests, to be gratuitous,'* 
and argues that the common possession of anything is more Hkely 
to cause strife than harmony.^ In his opinion, the present system 
of private property, if accompanied by a right moral tone and 
proper laws, combines the advantages of both common and indi- 
vidual ownership.'' The tenure of property should therefore be 
private, but there should be a certain friendly community in its 
actual use.s Thus will be avoided the double evil of strife and 
neglect, which must result from dissatisfaction and lack of per- 
sonal interest under communism.^ He offers as a substitute for 
the Platonic doctrine, then, his own ideal of reciprocal equaHty 
{to 'iaov TO avTLTreTTovdos) as the real cement of society^ In any 
event, he asserts, the present evils do not result from private 
property, but from the depravity of human nature (juox^T/ptaz^),^ 
and the aim should be to improve this by moral and intellectual 
culture, rather than to attempt amelioration by the estabhshment 
of an entirely new system.' The latter method would result, even 
if successful, not only in escape from some of the present evils, but 
also in the loss of the present advantages of private tenure." 

The foregoing arguments all show remarkable practical insight, 
and have been common in the modern criticism of socialism. The 
objection that individual effort and industry would be paralyzed 
if bereft of the stimulus of personal interest and ownership, while 
a general fact of human nature, need not be valid against a system 
where each has opportunity to develop up to his capacity. There 

' 1262040-126263. 3 1263311-16. 

* 1263630 ff., and preceding note. '• 22-26; 39 f. 

5 26-30, citing the proverb Koivara <pi\wv. Cf. 13296145. N. Eth. viii. 8 f. on 
<t>i\la; Pol. 1252629; 1280(125; cf. Xen. Laced. Pol. vi. 3-4. 

' Cf. preceding note, and 1261632 ff. * 1263622 f. 

' 1261030 f. N. Eth. V. 5. ' 37-42. But Plato used both methods. 

" 1263627-29; e.g., besides the personal satisfaction (1263040 f.), the opportunity 
for liberality (i 26361 1-13). 



122 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

is certainly little to impel the great mass of people to industry 
under an individualistic system, except the proverbial wolf at the 
door. But Aristotle is not thinking of the masses. The objection 
that the evils result from human nature, not from the economic 
system, may well be pondered by modern socialists and doctrinaire 
reformers, yet this very fact is an additional reason why the system 
should be reformed so as to curb such wrong tendencies. The 
emphasis upon education as a cure for the existing ills is wise, and 
it might well be more fully recognized by modern socialists, though 
both Aristotle and later critics of proposed social reforms are wrong 
in implying that the two methods are mutually exclusive. The 
warning that, by giving up the regime of private property, we 
should not only be rid of its evils, but also lose its advantages, 
should be pondered by agitators against the existing economic 
system. Modern socialists might also learn much from Aristotle 
and the other Greek thinkers in regard to the true social ideal, as 
not primarily materialistic and selfish, but moral and social. On 
the whole, it may be observed that Aristotle's criticism of Plato's 
alleged communism in the Republic would be far more applicable 
against modern socialism. 

As to the sussitia, Aristotle proposes a system similar to that of 
Plato's Laws.'' He harshly criticizes the Spartan method, which 
required every citizen, rich and poor alike, to contribute to the 
common meals on pain of loss of citizenship.^ He praises, on the 
other hand, the Cretan system, which permitted the entire citizen- 
ship, including women and children, to be nourished at the common 
table, at pubHc expense.^ 

We have seen that Plato, in the Laws, while apparently granting 
private property in land, really denies this, since he makes the 
product of the land practically pubHc property.'' Aristotle, despite 
his strictures against communism, advocates a system of land 
tenure quite similar. His limitation of the freedom of donation 
or testament, purchase or sale; his demands that the lot shall 

' iv (vii). lo. 133005 ff. He would make part of the land public. In the Laws, 
the expense is met by making the product public. 
^ 1271029-37. 
3 Ibid. 28 f.; 1272012-21. * Cf. above on socialism in the Laws. 



ARISTOTLE 123 

never leave the family, that it shall always be handed down by 
legitimate succession, and that no citizen shall ever be allowed to 
hold more than one allotment, are all Platonic, and make him 
unquestionably an advocate of family, rather than of private 
ownership of land.' His collectivism is more direct than that of 
the Laws, since he makes part of the land entirely pubHc, to defray 
the expense of worship and the common meals.^ The assignment 
of lots to the citizens is on the same terms as in the Laws, with the 
exception that the owners are masters of the product of their lots.^ 
Despite his criticism of Plato's division of homesteads, he has the 
same plan.-* As in the Laws, only citizens are landowners, and this 
includes only the governing and mihtary classes,s while all hus- 
bandmen are to be pubUc or private slaves.^ Unlike Plato, how- 
ever, Aristotle does not attempt to avoid undue inequahties in 
personal property J He sets no maximum above which limit goods 
must be confiscated, nor does he, as Plato, establish a rigorous 
system of laws to hamper trade and to make money-making oper- 
ations practically impossible. He recognizes that such regulations 
are not feasible, and his legislation is therefore more considerate of 
human nature, despite the fact that his hostility to the ideal of 
commerciaUsm is even more pronounced than is that of Plato. 

It is evident from the preceding outhne of Aristotle's negative 
and positive doctrine on the matter of private property that his 
system is in substantial agreement with that of Plato's second state." 
Besides the points of similarity noted above, he agrees with his 
predecessor in emphasizing strongly the power of the state over 
the life of the citizens. Both insist that the citizen belongs, not 

^Pol. ii. 1270021 f.; viii (v). 1309023-25, though rather a measure for an oli- 
garchy; vii (vi). 131908-13, for a democracy, also against mortgage on land; cf. 
Guiraud, La Prop, fonc, p. 591 • Like Plato, he opposes free disposal of dowries 
(1270023-25). 

=> Cf. p. 122, n. I. 3 133009-23. " 1265624-26. 5 iv (vii). 1329018-21. 

6 1330025-31; 1328&40; 132902; cf. Souchon, op. cit., pp. 169 f., on his system 
as compared with that of the Laws. 

7 Cf. p. 120, n. s; but cf. viii (v). 1308&16-19 for a recognition of the desirability 
of such a regulation. 

8 Cf. above, his criticism of chrematistik, Pol. i. chaps. 8-10. 

9 So Souchon, op. cit., p. 167; cf. above for differences in detail. 



124 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

to himself, but to the state, and can realize his best life only through 
the state/ Thus Aristotle is far from being a defender of private 
property in the absolute sense. On the other hand, his emphasis 
upon the social obligation of individual possession is, if not social- 
istic, at least very modern. He is certainly a much better socialist 
than the alleged communist of the Republic, whom he criticizes 
so severely. Like the Plato of the Laws, he is a semi-collectivist. 
As Barker has observed,^ Aristotle thought in terms of land, while 
modern sociaHsm thinks in terms of capital and labor. Both 
standpoints involve social ownership and the limitation of the indi- 
vidual, and in this respect the Greek thinker was sociaHstic in 
tendency. But despite their social spirit and their trend toward 
nationalism, which is so strong in all progressive countries today, 
neither he nor Plato was a socialist, in the modern sense, in spirit or 
in aim.3 Any attempts at direct comparison with modern social- 
ism, therefore, are likely to be fanciful and confusing. Whatever 
analogy there is between them is of a very general nature and 
should not be pressed. "• 

' Cf. pp. 119 f.; 1280J3S ff. He does not overlook the complement of this prin- 
ciple, that the prosperity of the whole involves that of the parts (iv [vii]. 13 28637 ff-> 
i329ai8-2i), his unjust criticism of Plato on this point. Zmavc (Zeitschrift, etc., 
p. 56, n. 3) rightly observes that there is more truth in this Greek doctrine of the 
relation of the individual to the state than moderns are prone to recognize. 

2 Op. ciL, p. 391. 

3 Francotte {Ultidustrie, II, 250) strongly emphasizes their extreme limitation 
of the individual. Souchon {op. cii., p. 170) refers to them as precursors of Marx, 
though he recognizes the difference in their aim. 

4 Poehlmann is an example of such exaggerated analogy. Cf. I, 599, where he 
makes Aristotle's theory of interest the source of the Marxian theory of value, and 
unduly presses the analogy between his chapter on chrematistik and modem criti- 
cisms of capital. For further Greek communistic theories after Aristotle, cf. infra. 



CHAPTER VII 

MINOR PHILOSOPHERS, CONTEMPORARIES OR SUCCESSORS OF 
PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 

The minor philosophers, contemporaries or successors of the 
Socratics, present in their extant fragments some ideas on wealth 
and other economic problems that are worthy of note. For pur- 
poses of convenience, we shall group them all here, though some of 
them would chronologically precede one or both of the greater 
philosophers. The successors of Plato in the Academy, Speusippus, 
Xenocrates, and Grantor,^ carried forward the teaching of the 
Socratics on wealth, as opposed to the more extreme doctrine of the 
Cynics and Stoics.^ There was, however, probably less emphasis 
on matters economic in their writings, since their prime interest 
was in practical individual ethics rather than in the political moral- 
ity of Plato and Aristotle, though Xenocrates is known to have 
written an Economicus.^ 

Theophrastus,'* the first and greatest successor of Aristotle in 
the Peripatetic school, was the author of a treatise on wealth, of 
which we know only the name.^ He also probably dealt somewhat 
with economic subjects in his Ethics and Politics, but only slight 
fragments of either work are extant. He reveals slightly greater 
regard for the importance of external goods than Aristotle, perhaps 
because of his special love for the quiet and leisure of the scholar's 
life.^ There is, however, no evidence that he went so far as to 

' Third century B.C.; cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 986 ff. 

^ Cic. De fin., iv. 18. 49; Plut. Adv. Sioicos, p. 1065: ol rod 'SevoKpdrovs Kal STreu- 
ffiirirov KaTrjyopovvTes irl rtp fjLT) ttjv vyeiav ddidcpopav 7]yet(r0at. fj.r]d^ rhv irXovrov dvoi- 
<pe\4s. On Grantor, cf. Ap. Sext. Emp. (Bekker, p. 538, 11. 4ff.); on the above, cf. 
Heidel, Pseudo-Platonica (dissertation, Chicago, 1896), p. 60, n. 5; cf. also Def. 140, 
of Speusippus (Mullach, op. cit., Ill, 80): ttXoCtos ktt}(hs (njix/jLeTpos irpos ei/daL/xovlav. 

3 For discussion of all the Economica, cf. infra. 

<Born ca. 370 B.C. (Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 807, n. i), a voluminous writer, from 
whom a substantial amount is extant, notably his Characters. 

5 Trepi irXoirov {Aspas. in Eth. 451; and Cic. De officiis ii. 16. 56). 

« Cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 856. 

125 



126 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

ascribe a positive value to wealth as such. On the contrary, he 
advises that one render himself independent of it by living a simple 
life/ and urges against vulgar display.^ Like Aristotle, he prefers 
moderate wealth,^ and finds its chief value in the fact that it 
enables one to have the distinction of giving splendid gifts to the 
people/ He approaches the cosmopolitan spirit of the Stoics in 
his emphasis upon the natural relationship of all men,s a result of 
the broadening vision due to the unification of Greece under the 
Macedonian Empire. There is nothing of interest from other 
members of the Peripatetic school, except the Eudemian Ethics 
and Magna moralia, which were included in our discussion of Aris- 
totle, and the pseudo-Aristotelian Economica, which will be dis- 
cussed in the following pages. 

THE ECONOMICA 

Economica were one of the characteristic types of Greek litera- 
ture, after the Economicus of Xenophon.^ They discussed wealth 
from the ethical standpoint, dealt largely with domestic, rather 
than public, economy, and considered questions of human relations, 
such as slavery and the married life. They are, in general, imi- 
tations of Xenophon and of Aristotle's Politics, and add very Httle 
of interest to the economic theory of the Socratics. Aside from the 
work, falsely ascribed to Aristotle, to be discussed below, Eco- 
nomica were written by Antisthenes,^ Xenocrates,^ Philodemus,' 

' Stob. FloT. iv. 283, No. 202, ed. Mein.: 6 avrbs (Theophrastus) eXeyev o^eLXonev 
eavToiis idl^eiv dirb oXlyuv ^rjv, etc. 

2 TheophrasH Opera, ed. Wimmer, iii. 231. fr. 86 f.; Plut. Lycurg. 10. 

3 Theoph. Op. iii. 182. fr. 78: ov8^v ttX^ov ex°^<^'->' "' irXotJcrioi tCjv /xirpia KeKTrj- 
fjiivwv, etc. (Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527). 

4 Cic. De officiis ii. 16. 56. 

5 Porph. De ahstin. iii. 25. 
' Cf . above on Xenophon. 

7Cf. injra on Cynics; Diog. L. vi. i. 16; not extant. 

* Diog. L. iv. 12; not extant. 

9 Trepi oiKovofilas; for fragments, cf. ed. Jensen (Teubner). He was an Epi- 
curean; cf. M. Hoderman, "Quaestionum Oeconomicarum Specimen," Berliner 
Stiidien f. Class. Phil., XVI, 4 (1896), 38 f., for a summary statement of his 
teaching. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 127 

Metrodorus of Lampsacus,^ Hierocles,' Dio Chrysostom,^ Plutarch/ 
and the New-Pythagoreans, ^ Bryson/ Callicratidas/ Periktione,^ 
and Phintys.' 

The pseudo-AristoteHan Economical" require no extended dis- 
cussion, since most of the material that is of interest in them is an 
imitation of Aristotle's Politics and Xenophon's Economics. Book i 

' Diog. L. X. II. 24: ire/ji ttXoi^toi/; probably opposed to the Cynic ideas on wealth. 
Cf. Hoderman, op. cit., 37 and note. 

^For the few fragments, cf. Stob. kxxv. 21 (Vol. Ill, p. 150, ed. Mein.), of 
Stoic tendency. Cf. F. Wilhelm, "Die Oeconomica der Neupythagoreer," Rhein. 
Mus., XVII, 2 (1915), 162. 

3 For frag., cf. Stob. Flor. xlii. 12 (Vol. II, p. 78, ed. Mein.); 46 (Vol. II, p. 366) ; 
Ixxiv. 59 (Vol. Ill, p. 362); Ixxxv. 12 (Vol. Ill, p. 138); of Stoic tendency, though the 
fragments may not be from him. Cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 162; Hoderman, op. cit., 
pp. 40 f • 

4 Cf. his Conjugalia tnoralia, which, though it does not bear the name Economica, 
is similar in content to them. Cf. Hoderman, op. cit., p. 43; cf. also his essay, Hept 
*tXoTrXouT^ai, which moralizes on the foUy of inordinate desire for wealth, in the Stoic 
vein, e.g., ed. Bern., Vol. Ill, 524D,P- 35?: ■^«''^« y^P "'^'^ *<^''"' '^^^' o'TXijcrrfa rb 
irdOoj aiiTov Kal ^iXoirXovrla. 

5 Jambhchus {Vit. Pyth. 72. 89. 169 f.) says that among the followers of Pythag- 
oras were those who were called oUovo/mkoI. They date from about the middle to 

. the end of the second century B.C. Cf. Wilhebn, op. cit., pp. 161-224. 

^Cf. Stob. V. 28. IS (p. 680, 7ff., ed. Wachs.; called olKovofUKbi. Wilhehn {pp. 
cit., p. 164, n. 3) thinks that the entire essay may be extant in a Hebrew translation. 
Bryson was Peripatetic in tendency. He makes a third division of slaves, in addition 
to Kara (piffiv and nark vbfiov; viz., Kara, rplmov ras i/'uxai. He also gives a catalogue 
of vocations, similar to that of Xen. Econ. i. 1-4, and raises the question as to the 
function of economics. 

7Cf. Stob. V. 28. 16 (p. 681, 15 ff.); iv. 22. loi (p. 534, 10 ff.); v. 28. 17 (p. 684, 
i6ff.); V. 28. i8(p. 686, i6ff.,ed. Wachs.): veplTasTwv oiK'^iuvevSaifiovias- composed 
largely of negative utterances on the rich, and of observations on the relations of the 
sexes; Platonic and Stoic m tendency. Cf. Wilhehn, op. cit., pp. 177, 222. 

8Cf. Stob. iv. 25. so; v. 28. 19 (ed. Wachs.): irepl ywaiK^s apixovlai and irtpl 
yvvaLKbs (xuKppoff-uvas; similar to Stoics. 

9 Cf. Stob. iv. 23. 61 f. (p. 588, 17 £f., ed. Wachs.); Stoic-Peripatetic in tendency. 
The two latter deal chiefly with the marriage relation. On the general subject of 
Economica, cf. Hoderman and Wilhelm, as above. 

" Book iii, in Latin, is of later origin, and is of no economic interest. Book i is 
perhaps from Eudemus of Rhodes, a pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus (ZeUer, II, 
2, 869 ff.), but Philodemus {De vita ix) assigns it to Theophrastus (Zeller, II, 2, 944); 
cf. Susemihl, introduction to his edition of the Economica, 1887. Book ii is later, 
but from the Peripatetic school (Zeller, II, 2, 945). 



128 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

is largely a repetition of some of Aristotle's theories of domestic 
economy, the marriage relation, and slavery, with a few unim- 
portant additions and slight differences/ Book ii is almost entirely 
composed of practical examples of how necessary funds have been 
provided by states and rulers. 

The most distinctive point about the doctrine of the first book 
is its separation of olKovoiiiKri from ttoKitikt] as a special science.^ 
The author agrees with Aristotle, however, that it is the function 
of economics both to acquire and to use, though without his specific 
limitations upon acquisition.^ He distinguishes four forms of 
economy — acquiring, guarding, using, and arranging in proper 
order.'' Elsewhere, he makes a different classification on another 
basis — imperial, provincial, public, and private.^ These are each 
further subdivided, the first including finance, export and import 
commerce, and expenditures.*^ 

Agriculture is especially eulogized by the author, in the spirit 
of Xenophon and Aristotle. It is the primary means of natural 
acquisition, the others being mining and allied arts whose source 
of wealth is the land.^ It is the most just acquisition, since it is not 
gained from men, either by trade, hired labor, or war,* and it con- 
tributes most to manly strength.' Retail trade and the banausic 
arts, on the other hand, are both contrary to nature,'" since they 
render the body weak and inefficient (dxpeta)." 

The work agrees with Aristotle, against Plato, in his doctrine 
that m^en and women are essentially different in nature, and hence 
that their work should be distinct." No attempt is made to justify 

' Cf. Susemihl, op. cit., p. v, n. i, for a list of parallel passages from Xenophon 
and Aristotle. 

' 134301-4, especially v m^'' ToXtTt/c?; ix voWQv apxbmujv iarlv^ ij qIkovoiiik^ 5i 
fwvapxia. Cf. also 14 f. Cf. Aristotle, above. Zeller (II, 2, 181, n. 6) points out 
that Etui. Eth. makes a similar distinction, in that he places economics between ethics 
and politics. 

3 134308 f., though 25 ff. implies the limitation, Acrijo-ews 5k irpihTrj iirin^Xeia ij 
Kard, (piffLV. 

*■ 1344622 ff. ' Ibid. 20 ff.: v6fj.i(TiJia, i^ayd^yiixa, eiaayijjyina, and dt-aXw/aara. 

s ii. 1345*13 ff- ^ i343a2S-27. 

* Ibid. 28-30. Cf . Aristotle, who makes war a natural pursuit. 

» 134362 f. " Cf. preceding n. 8. " 134363 f. " Ibid. 26 ff. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 129 

slavety, though Aristotle is followed in his advice to grant eman- 
cipation, as a special reward for faithfulness.^ The author of 
Book ii seems to have taken for granted the Cynic theory that 
money need have no intrinsic value, at least for local purposes. 
Coinage of iron,"" tin,^ bronze,'' the arbitrary stamping of drachmas 
with a double value ,s are all offered apparently as a proper means 
of escape from financial difficulty. Like Aristotle, he accepts 
monopoly as a shrewd and legitimate principle of finance.^ Else- 
where, however, in striking contrast to such uneconomic sugges- 
tions, the author states the important economic principle that 
expenditures should not exceed income.'^ In accord with Greek 
usage, he is familiar with a tax on exports for revenue and as a 
means of guarding against depletion of supply.^ 

CYKENAICS 

The Cyrenaics were the forerunners of the Epicureans in their 
more liberal attitude toward wealth. Aristippus,' the founder of 
the school, was a man of the world, who believed in enjoying Hfe 
as it came.^" He held that pleasure was always a good, and that 
all else was of value only as a means of reahzing this end." If con- 
sistent, therefore, he must have valued highly moderate wealth. 
His principle that one should aim to realize the highest degree of 
pleasure with the least economic expenditure is somewhat analo- 
gous to the modem economic doctrine of the smallest means." 
Bion of Borysthenes became a Cyrenaic in his later life, but his 
satires are almost entirely lost.^^ 

'I3446i5f.; 1344(123-1344611. 3 1349033 ff. 

^ i$/^8biy S. 4 1350023 £f. 

5 1349&3 1 ff . Debasement of the currency was common in the time of the author. 

^ 1346624 ff.; 134763 ff.; cf. Ar. Pol. 125906-35. 

7 1346014-16: t6 rdvoKdiixara /xtj nel^w twv irpocrbSuv ytyeffdai. 

* 135 20 16 ff.; cf. above on the Socratics, under exchange. 

' Of Cyrene (435 B.C.) , a pupil of Socrates. No genuine fragments of his writings 
are extant. Cf. Zeller, II, i, 346 ff. 
'" Cf. Horace Ep. i. 17, 23. 

" Cf. Zeller, II, i, 346, n. 2, and Xen. Mem. ii. i. 9. 

" 2^11er II, I, 346, n. 2; cf. Oncken, op. cit., p. 47, a basal principle of hedonism. 
'3 Cf. Hor. Ep. ii. 2. 60. 



130 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

EPICURUS AND HIS SCHOOL 

Epicurus, though the apostle of hedonism, and heir of the 
Cyrenaics, taught a doctrine of wealth somewhat similar to that of 
the Stoics.^ His ''happiness" consisted in living a simple and 
prudent Hfe. He taught that spiritual wealth is unlimited, and 
that the wise are contented with things easy to acquire (euTropicrra) ;^ 
that external wealth, on the other hand, is limited,^ and that it is 
not increase of possessions but limitation of desires that makes 
truly rich.'' He believed the simplest food to be best,^ both for 
pleasure and for health, that many wealthy find no escape from ills,^ 
that he who is not satisfied with Httle will not be satisfied with all,' 
and that contented poverty is the greatest wealth.^ In accord 
with his teaching, he seems to have lived very simply.' However, 
he did not go to the extreme of the Cynics and Stoics, but taught 
that the wise will have a care to gain property, and not live as 
beggars.'" He exhibits no tendency toward commimism, but 
rather toward the extreme individualism of the Sophists, and was 
in sympathy with their social contract theory." Later Epicurean- 
ism degenerated by taking the hedonistic principle of its founder too 
literally. Like the Sophists, the school has influenced modern 
economic thought through its conception of justice, as a mere 
convention for mutual advantage." 

' 342-270 B.C. His theory was far different than the Cyrenaic doctrine of the 
pleasure of the moment. 

*Diog. L. X. 130, 144, 146; Stob. Flor. xvii. 23. 

3 Usener, Epicurea (1887), pp. 300-304, wpitrrai. 

*IUd., p. 302, fr. 473; p. 303, fr. 476. 

5 Diog. L. X. 130 f. 

* Usener, p. 304, fr. 479. 

T Ibid., p. 302, fr. 473 f.; cf. Stob. Flor. xvii. 30. 

* Usener, p. 303, and fragments. 

> Stob. xvii. 34; Seneca Ep. 25. 4 f.; Cic. Tttsc. disp. v. 31. 

"Diog. L. X. 119; Philod. De vit. ix. cols. 12 ff., 27, 40. 

" Cf . Barker, op. cit., p. 37; cf. above on Sophists; also Dunning, Political 
Theories Ancient and Mediaeval (1913), pp. 103 f. 

" Cf. Hasbach, ^//gewezwe philosophische Grundlagen der Fol. Econ. {iSgo),pp. 76 
and 36 f.; Dunning, as above. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 131 

CYNICS 
The Cynics developed the negative attitude of the Socratics 
toward wealth to its extreme in asceticism. Their doctrine was sub- 
versive of all economic interest. Antisthenes, the founder of the 
school, was a contemporary of Plato, a Sophist in his youth, but 
later associated with the Socratic circle. He appears prominently 
in the Symposium of Xenophon.^ He urged a return to nature 
in the literal sense. ^ His book on the nature of animals xept ^icoiv 
</)i;(7€cos) probably presented examples from the animal world as 
models for natural human living. Like many writers of his time 
and later, he idealized the life of primitive and barbarous peoples.^ 
In utter antithesis to Aristotle,'' he declared city life and civil- 
ization to be the source of all injustice, luxury, and corruption. 
In his opinion, Zeus punished Prometheus, not because he envied 
men any good, but because the discovery of fire was the source 
(a<j>opnr)) of all effeminacy and luxury for men.s Material wealth 
was, to him, if not an absolute evil, something about which men 
should be entirely indifferent, for in essence, good and evil could have 
only a moral reference.^ The craving for wealth or power was a 
vain illusion. Nothing was good for a man except what was actually 
his own,' and this was to be found only in the soul.^ Wealth without 
virtue was not only worthless, but a fruitful source of evil,' and no 
lover of money could be either virtuous or free.^** He thus advanced 

' For his life, cf. Zeller, II, i, 280 ff., and Diog. L. vi. A few fragments of his 
philosophical dialogues are extant. Cf. above, p. 126, n. 7. for his Economicus. He 
and Diogenes are discussed at this point, since the Cynic movement as a whole is 
logically post-Aristotelian. 

^Diog. L. vi. I. 15; cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 117 and note, with citations from 
Dio of Prusa; also Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 325 f. and note, who thinks Plato's ironical 
"city of pigs" {Rep. ii) may well have been a reference to the ideas of Antisthenes. 

3 Cf. preceding note, and infra, on later ideal states. 

* Pol. i. 1253(11-4: dvOpwiros (f>i<r€L TroXiriKbv ^Qov, etc. 

sDionis Prus. Opera (ed. Arnim, 1893, or vi. 25 f.), ascribed to Diogenes, but 
it was also the idea of Antisthenes. Cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 118; compare Rousseau. 
' Diog. L. vi. 104. T Ibid. vi. 12; cf. chap. 9, 105. 

* Xen. Symp. iv. 34, 34-43, on the advantages and disadvantages of the two kinds 
of wealth; iii. 8; Econ. i. 7 f.; ii. 2 f. 

' Xen. Symp. iv. 35 f. 
" Mullach, op. cit., II, p. 289, fr. 86: <pi\dpyvpos. 



132 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

beyond the Socratic doctrine of ability to use as the criterion of 
value. 

However, though despising wealth, Antisthenes upheld the 
dignity of free labor. He believed it to be a good by which alone 
virtue is gained, the source of independence.^ Like the rest of the 
Cynics, he was thus doubtless opposed to slavery. The Cynic 
principle that all diversities in men, except differences in moral 
character, were merely accidental was a direct argument against 
slavery.^ It is also probable that he held the Cynic doctrine that 
intrinsic value in money is unnecessary.^ 

Diogenes of Sinope, "the philosopher of the proletariat, " became 
more famous than Antisthenes, owing to his eccentric personality.'' 
He carried the Cynic doctrine of wealth to its reductio ad absurdum 
by applying it hterally in his own life. His repudiation of wealth 
and civiHzation was even more emphatic than that of his predeces- 
sor. He taught that wealth without virtue is worse than poverty.^ 
Lovers of wealth are like men afflicted with the dropsy, always 
athirst for more.^ The desire for money is the very source and 
center {ix-qr poTroKiv) of all ills.'' Virtue cannot dwell either in a 
wealthy state or in a wealthy house.* Poverty better accords with 
it, and is no real cause of suffering.^ Truly noble men despise 
wealth and are above being troubled by poverty and other so-called 
ills.'" 

' Diog. L. vi. 2, KoX 6tl 6 7r6«'ox iyadbv <Tvvi(TT7](Te Sta toO fxeydXov 'HpaKX^ovs Kal 
ToO Kipov. Heracles, the toiler, was their patron saint. Antisthenes is said to have 
written two dialogues called Heracles (Diog. L. vi. 2. 18), but Zeller, {op. cit., II, i, 
307, n. 4) thinks only one was genuine. 

^ Cf. infra on Diogenes. Ar. Pol. 1253620-22 probably refers to the Cynics, as 
holding it to be Kark <f>i<nv, ovbk biKaiov, and ^laiov. Cf. Newman, op. cit., I, 140, 
n 2, on this. He cites Strabo, p. 15; no, on the opposition of the Cynic Onesicritus 
to slavery. Cf. above, pp. 97 ff.; Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 280 ff., 323 f. 

J Cf. infra on Diogenes and Eryxias; Ar. Pol. 125 76 10, probably Cynic. 

■•412-323 B.C.; cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 280 ff. 

sMullach, F.Ph.C, II, 326, fr. 276; cf. Diog. L. vi. 47: rhv trXoixnov afM$rj, 
irpb^arov e»7r« XP^'^^I'^^^^- 

* Mullach, II, 302, fr. 27; 327, fr. 285; cf. infra on Teles, for like idea. 

^Mullach, II, 316, fr. 168; Chrysost. Homil. Ixiv in Matthew points to Paul's 
parallel, I Tim. 6: 10: pi^a- y^p irduruv tQv kclkQv i<Trlv 17 (piXapyvpia. 

« Mullach, II, 305, fr. 63. » Ibid. fr. 66; 65. " Ibid. fr. 61; p. 327, fr. 285. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 133 

Diogenes was doubtless opposed to slavery and taught that 
under proper conditions of the simple Hfe there would be no reason 
for it.' In his opinion, the truly free were not slaves, even though 
they might be in a state of servitude, but the mean-spirited were 
slavish even though free.^ He wrote a Republic in which he seems 
to have advocated fiat money to take the place of the hated gold 
and silver^ and to prevent the extensive accumulation of movable 
wealth. He also advocated the community of wives and children,'' 
and perhaps some system of land tenure other than private owner- 
ship.s Crates, the poet of the Cynics,^ expresses similar sentiments 
of scorn for wealth, supreme regard for virtue,7 and glorification of 
poverty,^ Menippus and Monimus left little of economic interest. 

"eryxias" 
The pseudo-Platonic dialogue, Eryxias, is of special interest 
for our study, since it is the only extant work in Greek literature 
which deals directly and exclusively with the problem of wealth.^ 
The work presents nothing new, however, which had not already 
been observed by the Socratics. The statement of Heidel," that 
it is "distinctly the most valuable contribution of antiquity to 
the science of political economy," is therefore an exaggeration. 

' Gomperz, op. ciL, II, 133; ZeUer (op. cit., II, i, 323 f.) is not sure that the 
Cynics taught a positive anti-slavery doctrine, but cf. p. 132, n. 2. 

2 Diog. L. vi. 66, 74 f.; cf. Epict. Dissert, iii. 24. 67. 

3 Athen. iv. 159c: Aioy^vns S' iv ry iroKirelq. vSfna-fia ehai vofwderei &<rTpayd\ovi. 

4 Diog. L. vi. 72: ^Xeye di Kal Koivhs ehai deiv ras yvvaiKas, etc. Aristotle 
{Pol. ii. 7. 1266334) names Plato as its sole advocate, but cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 
321 f., n. 4, and Gomperz, op. cit., II, 132, though they think that he did not hold 
it in the extreme form stated by Diogenes Laertius. 

s There is no specific evidence, though it would accord well with his other teach- 
ings. Cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 132. 

6 Called "Thebaios"; flor. ca. 328 B.C.; cf. Diog. L. vi. 87. 

7 Mullach, F. Ph. G., II, 334, fr. 6; 338, frs. 38, 39; cf. also Diog. L. vi. 86. 

8 Cf. The Beggar's Wallet, an amusing parody of the Odyssey (von Amim, Leben 
und Werke des Dio von Prusa [1898], 255 fif. Gomperz (op. cit., II, n. 545 to p. 125) 
doubts its genuineness for Crates, but thinks it is from a Cynic source; cf. also infra 
on Teles. 

9 The pseudo-Aristotelian Economics is a possible exception. The Economics of 
Xenophon has a broader theme, and the Revenues is for practical purposes. 

" Pseudo-Platonica, p. 59- 



134 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Nevertheless, the essay is worthy of more notice than it has usually 
received in histories of ancient economic thought/ Whatever 
consideration has been given to it has been largely devoted to the 
question of its origin. It reveals points of contact with Plato, the 
later Socratics, and especially with Antisthenes, the Cynic, with 
whom the author seems to have been most in sympathy.* 

The two theses that form the goal of the Eryxias are that the 
wisest men are in reality the wealthiest, and that material wealth 
is an evil, since they who possess most of it are the most needy of 
all, and hence most depraved.^ The keynote of the dialogue is the 
question of Socrates concerning the wealthy Sicilian, "What sort 
of a man was he reputed to be in Sicily?"'' The double thesis is 
illustrated concretely by Socrates, the wisest, and the Sicilian, 
the richest but worst of men. The first idea is prominent in 
Euthydemus,^ and elsewhere in Plato and Xenophon.^ The second 
is a favorite doctrine of the Cynics and Stoics,' though the general 
thought may be traced back to Socrates.* 

Some insight is exhibited by the author into the problem of 
value. Like Xenophon, he defines property {xpT]tio.Ta) as that which 
is useful, and thus recognizes this element in value.' He also dis- 
tinguishes general from economic utility." In answer to the ques- 
tion in respect to what particular use wealth possesses utility, he 

' It is given mere passing mention in Boeckh, op. cit., I, 693; Hoderman, op. cit., 
p. 9; Francotte, U Industrie, II, 310, n. i; Cossa, op. cit., p. 146; Oncken, op. cit., 
p. 37; Bonar, op. cit., p. 11, n. i; Kautz, op. cit., p. 121; Simey, op. cit., p. 474; 
Hagen, Observationum oec. pol. in Aesch. dialog., qui Eryx. inscribitur (dissertation, 
1822). The latter has not been examined. 

" On its origin, cf. Otto Schrohl, De Eryx. qui fertur Platonis (dissertation, 1901) 
which gives a full bibliography, pp. 5 ff.; Heidel (Pseudo-Platonica, p. 61), following 
Steinhart (Mueller, VII, 14), attributes it to a later Socratic, in sympathy with 
Antisthenes; p. 69, n. 3, he thinks it grew out of Euthyd. 288E ff.; for other points of 
contact, cf. Schrohl, 10 ff. 

3 On the first, cf. 393A-394E, 402E-403C; on the second, cf. 396E-397D, 405C- 
406B. 

^ Cf. preceding n. 3. s 278E-282. ^ Cf . above, in loc. "> For Stoics, cf. infra. 

*Xen. Mem. i. 6, especially end: <7««» 5^ vofii^w rb /xiv firidevbs SeTffdai OeTop elvai, 
etc.; cf. Schrohl, op. cit., pp. 26-28. 

9 400E, 401A. 

" 401 A: dXXo, iroTa 5tj tCiv XP'JO'^M'*"'? ^"'etS'^ ye ov irdvra. Cf. also 400E. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 13 5 

states tentatively that it is with respect to bodily needs,' an idea 
suggestive of the organon theory of Aristotle. By this, he doubtless 
means food, clothing, and shelter, which have the quality of rarity. 
This, however, is only a step in the argument, which has for its 
goal the thesis that intellectual attainments constitute the most 
important part of one's wealth, and possess a very real economic 
value.^ The author thus agrees with Plato, Xenophon, the Cynics, 
and the Stoics, in his emphasis upon spiritual goods. The dis- 
tinction between value in use and value in exchange and the neces- 
sary dependence of the latter upon the former are also suggested 
in the statement that nothing can have economic value except as 
there is a demand for it. The money that passes current in one 
state may be valueless in another, as also would be the mansion of 
the wealthy Polytion to Scythian nomads, since there would be 
no demand for them.^ 

The Eryxias has no clear or satisfactory definition of wealth. 
It is recognized that wealth must be defined before its character 
as good or evil can be determined, but the final answer nowhere 
appears.'^ In this vagueness of result, one is strongly reminded of 
some of Plato's minor dialogues. There is also a certain ambiguity 
throughout the work, similar to that observed in Plato,^ between 
wealth in its strict economic sense and excessive wealth. We may 
gather from the course of the argument, however, that the author 
would define wealth as consisting of things that possess utility, and 
are subjects of economic demand, whether external, physical, or 
intellectual goods. 

The attitude of the Eryxias toward wealth is an extreme ver- 
sion of that with which we have become familiar in the Socratics, 
and is best characterized as Cynic. As seen above, the author 
considers external wealth to be an absolute second to wisdom,^ 

' 401B, 401E. 

» 402E, 393E-394E, and the general thesis that the wisest are richest. 
3400A-E, 394D, arguing that economic demand might make a man's wisdom 
more valuable than another's house. 
4 399E. 

s Cf. 399E, where Eristratos defines ^rXoOros as to. xPVfJ-o-ra ttoXXA /ceKr^cr^ac. 
* 393A, 393D-394A; cf. above, pp. 24 ff. and notes for Plato and others. 



136 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

since tvisdom is not only itself a means of providing material needs,* 
but also and especially because through it alone does any material 
wealth become truly valuable.^ When the latter is made the 
summum honum, it becomes the greatest evil. Like Plato, Jesus, 
and Ruskin, he insists that the kingdom of wisdom be given the 
first place,^ for things derive their good or evil quaHty from the 
character or knowledge of the user.'' The ironical account of how 
the Greek fathers, even of the best classes {to)v ixeylaroiv boKovvTU)v) 
urge their boys to seek wealth, since without this they are of no 
account, is almost in the language of Pastor Wagner's condemna- 
tion of the extreme commercialism of this age.^ Material goods, 
when unwisely used, are a fruitful source of ills,^ and excessive 
wealth is always evil.^ However, the pohtical motive, which 
prompted the hostiUty of Plato and Aristotle to excessive wealth, 
is absent from the Eryxias. 

Thus far the attitude of the author does not dififer very essen- 
tially from that of the Socratics, but toward the end of the dialogue 
the doctrine is distinctly taught that wealth is an evil per se. He 
argues that one's needs are most numerous in a state of sickness, 
when he is in his worst condition.* One is at his best, on the other 
hand, when he has fewest and simplest needs.' But those who 
have most property are sure to need the largest provision for the 
service of the body."* Thus the richest, as being the most needy, 
are the most depraved (/iox^^porara dtaKelfxevoi) and the most 
unhappy, and therefore external wealth is essentially evil." Such 
a characteristically Cynic doctrine is essentially ascetic, and sub- 
versive of the very foundations of economics. 

' 394D-E, 402E. 

^ 393E, 396E-397E, 403E, the insistence upon ability to use, so common in Plato, 
Xenophon, and Ruskin. 
, 3 394D-E, which reads like a passage from the New Testament. '' 397E. 

5396C: &" iJ-iv ri €XT?^ li^iis Tov, iav di /xtJ? ovdevdi. Cf. The Simple Life: "He 
who has nothing is nothing." Cf. Eurip. fr. 328, Danae (Nauck): KUKbs 5' 6 ^lr] 
fX'^''^ *•' ^' ex°'''''^^ 6Xj3tot. 

^396E-397E; cf. infra, the Stoic doctrine of "indifferents"; but they included 
health and wealth in the same class, while the Eryxias does not. Cf. Diog. L. vii. 
103; cf. a similar passage in the Euthydenms; cf. Schrohl, op. cit., p. 34. 

7 396E-397E, as above; 393A. * 40SD. » 405E. " 406B. 

" Ihid., but cf. 134, n. 8, where Socrates approaches this asceticism. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 137 

The Eryxias hints at a definition of capital in the distinction 
between the direct consumption of wealth and its use for further 
production.' But it is far from the author's purpose to define 
capital, and he makes nothing of the distinction. The relation of 
money to wealth is also dealt with incidentally. Like Aristotle, 
he criticizes the definition of wealth as "the possession of much 
money, "^ on the ground that the money of one country may not 
pass current in another, and hence cannot be true wealth.^ This is 
suggestive of the Cynic theory of fiat money, since the examples 
used are those of the worthless currency of Carthage, Sparta, and 
Ethiopia.'' But the argument proves too much, since it would be 
equally as effective against counting the house of Polytion as true 
wealth. There is, moreover, a peculiar shift in this part of the 
dialogue between money and property. The theory of the author 
is further upheld by the argument that a condition can be conceived 
in which our bodily needs might be supplied without silver or gold, 
in which case these metals would be worthless.^ However, the 
necessity of intrinsic value for international currency is recognized,* 
and it seems hardly probable that the purpose of the dialogue was 
to contend that money is never wealth, since the very implication 
of the argument is that current money is wealth.'' 

TELES 

The fragments of Teles exhibit the same extreme asceticism of 
the Cynics in relation to wealth.^ His main thesis is that the pos- 
session of money does not free from want and need.' Many who 

' 403E, distinguishing the materials of a house, the tools by which they are pro- 
vided, and the tools for building. Cf. Plato and Aristotle, in loc, for a like distinction. 

2 399E. 3 400A-E. 

■t 400A-B. Heidel {op. cit., p. 61) points to his "ostentatious display of learning" 
here. 

5402B-C, 404A-B. ^4ooE. 

'' 400C-E, especially Sera fiiv &pa rvyx^vei xpTjo-tyua 6vTa T]fuv ravra x/ST^/iara, 
though at this point the term has been made to include all wealth; cf. also 402C: 
aXKa TttOr' &i> elr] {xP'fifJ-ara) oh to. xP'^'^ '■t^'"' o^"/ t' i<Xfiiv iKTropi^ecrdai. 

* Cf. Teletis Reliquiae, ed. Hense, Freiburg, 1889. The ancient source is Sto- 
baeus. Teles, a Cjmic of Megara, wrote about 240 B.C. Cf. Hense, op. cit., XXI- 
XXXV; Gomperz, op. cit., II, 129 ff. Fr. iv. A, pp. 24 ff., and iv. B, p. 34, are of 
special economic interest. 

9 Fr. IV, A, pp. 24 ff. 



138 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

have great possessions do not use them, because of stinginess and 
sordidness.^ But if wealth is not used, it is useless, and cannot 
free from need or want.^ Here we meet a different application of 
the criterion of "use" from that with which we have become 
famihar in the Socratics, the Eryxias, and Ruskin. It is based on 
refusal, rather than inability to use, though the other idea is in the 
background. The author argues further that wealth does not free 
from need, because the wealthy life is always insatiate {aT\rj<TTos) ,^ 
and wealth does not change the disposition,'' by which change alone 
the Hfe can be freed from need and slavery .^ To try to accomplish 
this by wealth is like attempting to cure a patient of dropsy by stuf- 
fing him with water until he bursts.^ Counsel is given, therefore, not 
to turn one's sons to the acquisition of wealth, but to study under 
Crates, who can set them free from the vice of insatietyJ 

Poverty, on the other hand, does not change the disposition of 
the temperate man for the worse.* There is nothing distressing or 
painful about it,' for Crates and Diogenes were poor and yet passed 
their life in ease.'" It is no harder to endure old age in poverty 
than in wealth, but all depends upon the disposition." Poverty 
deprives the Ufe of no positive good, but furnishes the opportunity 
of gaining good," since it is conducive to the contemplative life of 
philosophy, while wealth is an obstacle to this.^^ It is the poor, 
rather than the wealthy, who have leisure.^'' They are also obliged 
to be strong (Kaprepelv), while the wealthy become effeminate, 

' Fr. IV, A, p. 24: 5t' dveXevOeplav Kal pviraplav. 

^ Ibid. 27; cf. the example of the ^opMes, who have an eye, but do not use it; 
cf. also the quotation from the "ancients" on the distinction between xP'}A"»Ta, "used 
wealth," and KT-^nara, "wealth merely possessed" (11. 13 f.). 

3 P. 32, the unsated life will not be satisfied even with immortality, since it cannot 
become Zeus. L. 13 ff., kings are always in want, <Tiravl^ov<rt.v. Cf. Xen. Symp. iv.36. 

4 P. 26, U. 4 f., 6-12; p. 31. « P. 29, 11. 6 ff. 

s P. 28, 11. 13-29. 7 p. 29; cf. pp. 30 f.; p. 26, 11. II f. * P. 26. 

'Fr.; lie/)! ttVTopKeios; p. 9: Kal rl ex^i- Svffx^P^^ ^ i'Tiirovov i] wevla. 

" Ibid. " Ibid. Cephalus in Rep. i gives a more balanced judgment. 

"Ibid., pp. 6 f., citing Bion on the answer of poverty to her accusers. Cf. Aris- 
toph. Plulus 558 f. on the power of poverty, cited by Ruskin, Aratra Pentel., IV, 139 
(Vol. XX, 296). 

'3 Fr. iv. B, p. 34, he attacks the opposite thesis. 

'4 Ibid., 11. s f.; p. 35, good doctrine for a tramp; p. 34. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS I39 

since they have no impetus to work/ Thus poverty, when accom- 
panied with justice, should be more highly honored than wealth.^' 
The author concludes that it is therefore best to despise wealth 
and turn to the Hfe of philosophy, for this develops generosity 
instead of stinginess, and contentment instead of insatiety. Such 
a Ufe uses what is on hand, and Uves content with present 
blessings (rots rapovffi).^ The marked contrast between this 
ascetic philosophy of poverty and the saner teaching of Plato, 
who was as much opposed to poverty as to excessive wealth, is 
patent. 

STOICS 

The Stoics were the natural descendants in thought of the 
Cynics, whom they resemble closely in their attitude toward 
external goods. According to their definition, a good must have an 
unconditioned value {ahsolutum, ayreXes). Whatever exists merely 
for the sake of something else, or is of value only in comparison 
to something else, is not a good." A similar doctrine was held 
concerning evil. Thus spiritual goods were counted to be the 
only true wealth,^ and he who had the right attitude toward 
all,^ and used all rightly, was thought to be the spiritual owner 

of all.7 

Zeno, the founder of the school,^ classified both wealth and 
poverty among the so-called " indiff erents " (dStd^opa) ," as neither 
good nor evil per se. Like the Cynics, he eulogized poverty, 
though not to such an extreme degree." He went with them only 

' Ibid., 11. 13 ff. 

" Ihid., pp. 36 f., a comparison of Aristides and Callias. 

3 Fr. iv. A, p. 28, purporting to be the answer of Crates as to what he would gam 
by being a philosopher. 

4 Cf. infra; also Cic. Defin. iii. 10. 33 ^ teller, op. ciL, III, i, 214. 
s Cic. Paradox. 6, on the thesis that only the wise are rich. 

* Seneca Benef. vii. 3. 2 f.; 6. 3; 8. i. 

7 Diog. L. vii. 125. On both the citations above, cf. Zeller, III, i, 251. 

8 Called Citieus, bom 320 B.C., of Semitic descent. 

9 Stoic Vet. Fr., ed. Arnim, 1905, I, 47, fr- 190 (Stob. Ed. ii. 7- 5, PP- 57 i; ed. 
Wachs.); Diog. L. vii. loi f., 103-5. 

-Von Arnim, op. cit., p. S3, fr- 220; Cic. Defin. v. 84:^^" At Zeno eum (mendi- 
cum) non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est." 



I40 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

so far as to insist that wealth and poverty have no value, except 
in relation to the proper spiritual attitude.^ 

In his argument that temples are not especially holy places, 
since they are the work of artisans {^avavaoiv), Zeno exhibits the 
common negative attitude of the philosophers toward manual 
labor.^ His doctrine on money and exchange was also the negative 
teaching of the moraHst, though his statements on these matters 
have special reference to an ideal future.^ His attitude on the 
problem of distribution is not altogether clear, though he wrote 
a Republic,'^ in which he seems to have presented some communistic 
ideas. Like his followers, he looked to the time when the whole 
world should be one state, where artificial differences were no more, 
and all men were brothers.^ His state is Utopian and anarchistic, 
without temple, court, gymnasium, money, or exchange. All are 
to wear the same clothing, and there shall be no artificial modesty.'' 
Community of wives, at least for the wise, was also probably 
among his Utopian schemes,' though it is very unlikely that he held 
the doctrine in the crass form as reported.^ His state is some- 
what suggestive of the Christian ideal, as a unitary whole, a world- 
cosmos, united by love.' 

There is a peculiar mixture of individualistic and social con- 
ceptions in the philosophy of the Stoics. In their pictures of an 
ideal future world-state, they advanced beyond Plato and other 
thinkers, who Hmited their communities to the small city-state. 
In calling their state a ''cosmos" also, they gave a positive social 

■ Von Arnim (p. 52, fr. 216 [Stob. Ed. ii. 7. iig, pp. 99 f., ed. Wachs.]) cites Zeno 
as placing among the goods of the o-TrouSatoj man the fact that he is oUovomKbi and 
Xp7;jtiaTi(rTtK6s, while the <pav\oi are opposite; cf. also p. 100. 

' Von Arnim, p. 61, fr. 264 (Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12. 76, p. 6gip). 

3 Von Arnim, p. 62, fr. 268 (Diog. L. vii. ;i^): v6ij.i(rfj.a 5' oiJr' d\Xa7^s iveKev 
oieffdai deiv KaraffKevd^eiv oUt'' anoSruxlas iveKev. Oncken {op. cit., p. 48) thinks that 
the Stoics were forerunners of the physiocrats. 

" Plut. De Alex. Fort. i. 6: ^ Tro\i> 6avfia^ofj.^vq iroXirda rod .... Z-^vovos. He 
says that it agreed in principle with the states of Plato and Lycurgus. Cf. Poehl- 
mann, op. cit., II, 341 ff., but cf. infra, p. 140 f. Cf. n. 2, above. Ar. Pol. ii. 4. 1266(1: 
elffl Si Tives TToXiTeiai Kal fiXXat, etc., shows that a series of ideal states had preceded 
his, though he says Plato's was the most radical. 

5 Plut. De Alex. Fort. i. 6. 

* Diog. L. vii. 33, 131 ; cf. nn. 3 and 5 above. * Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 342, n. i. 

' Diog. L. vii. 131; 33. 9 Cf. above, n. 5; Athen. xiii. 561c. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 141 

content to the narrow individualism of the C5mics.^ Moreover, as 
seen above, their ideal undoubtedly contained some communistic 
elements. However, according to the fundamental tenet of Stoi- 
cism, as expressed by Zeno,^ that only the wise can be free and 
citizens, we are still faced with the old duality and anti-socialistic 
ideal. The Stoics, like the Cynics, were after all essentially indi- 
vidualistic, and were probably believers in private ownership, 
though they dreamed of a future golden age of altruism, when pri- 
vate property would be no longer necessary.^ 

Chrysippus, the greatest of the Stoics,'' continued and expanded 
the principle that virtue is the only absolute good, and that all 
other things are indififerents, depending for their worth upon right 
use.5 But since the wise alone are capable of right use of externals, 
they alone are truly wealthy .*' They are wealthy, even though beg- 
gars, and noble though slaves.'^ They are not eager for wealth^ yet 
they are good economists, since they know the proper source,' time, 
method, and extent of money-making. The worthless, on the other 
hand, are most needy, even though wealthy.^" Chrysippus seems to 
have advanced still farther, in teaching the negative doctrine that 
wealth is an evil, since it may come from an evil source," an idea sug- 
gestive of the modern theory of "tainted money. "Naturally, he with 
the other Stoics, was in sympathy with the Socratics, in objecting 
to the use of one's knowledge for purposes of money-making." 

' Cf. Poehlmann, op. ciL, I, 11, n. 8; also 346. = Diog. L. vii. 33. 

3 On this double tendency in the Stoics, and reasons therefor, cf. Souchon [op. 
ciL, pp. 173 f.); Poehlmann {op. cit., II, 342 f., and I, iii) and Wolf {op. ciL, 
pp. 1 16 fif .) exaggerate their socialistic tendency. For further discussion, cf . infra. 
Cf. L. Stein, Soc. Frage, pp. 171-80. 

4 280-206 B.C. Aristo and Cleanthes, successors of Zeno, also emphasized similar 
doctrines in relation to wealth. Cf. von Arnim, I, p. 89, frs. 396, 397, 398, from 
Aristo; ibid., p. 137, fr. 617, from Cleanthes. 

^ Ibid., II, 79, fr. 240; III, 28, fr. 117; p. 29, frs. 122, 123; p. 32, fr. 135. 

^Ibid., Ill, 156, fr. 598; p. 159, fr. 618; p. 155, fr. 593. i Ibid., p. 155, fr. 597. 

* Ibid., p. 160, fr. 629, "Lucro autem numquam sapiens studet." 

^ Ibid., p. 169, fr. 623: tibvov 6^ t6v <nrovdaiov &vSpa XP'JM'*'''"'"''"'^*' ^^va.L, jLvuff- 
Kovra d(^' S)v, xP'tt^^-Tio'Tiov, Kalirdre Kal ttios Kal fi^XP^ Trdre, 

" Von Arnun, III, 168, fr. 674. 

"Ibid., p. 36, frs. 151, 152, "Bonum ex malo non fit: divitiae fiunt: fiunt autem 
ex avaritia divitiae ergo non sunt bonum" (Seneca Ep. 87. 22). 

"Von Arnim, p. 172, fr. 686 (Stob. Eel. ii. 7, p. 109, 10): ... . \6yovs kclitti- 
Xei^etv, ov (pa/x^viov deTv cnrb vaiSelas -rrapa tCjv iynrvxifTuv x/577//.aT/ft(7tfai, 



142 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

The cosmopolitan attitude of the Stoics caused them to be 
opposed to the theory of slavery as a natural institution.^ They 
taught that enforced service is no evidence of slavery,^ but that 
the real slaves are the ignoble and foolish.^ The wise, on the other 
hand, alone are free, though they are slaves to countless masters.'* 

Chrysippus, like Zeno, probably had dreams of a future ideal 
state, where the highest eternal law would rule and individual 
strivings would be lost in the care for the common weal.^ If he 
taught family communism, it was doubtless in a Platonic form.'' 

Utopian social theories after the time of Aristotle were by no 
means limited to those of Zeno and Chrysippus. As Souchon has 
observed,^ the period between the end of the fourth and the begin- 
ning of the second centuries was especially favorable to such specu- 
lation. The skeptical criticism of the Sophists had prepared the 
following generations to call in question the most elementary social 
principles. Ideal states, such as those of Phaleas and Plato, had 
opened the way for future imitations. The conquests of Alexander 
had broadened the vision of the Greek, so that he no longer thought 
in terms of Plato's circumscribed city, but rather in terms of a world- 
state. Moreover, the utter poUtical confusion and unstable 
economic conditions of the time aroused the more serious-minded 
to dream of an ideal past or golden age; to idealize the simple, 
"natural" life of the so-called "pious" barbarian nomads,* or 
even of the animal world, as opposed to the "artificial" conditions 
of civilization; and to exaggerate the virtues and communistic 

' Von Arnim, p. 86, fr. 352: AvOpwiros yap iK (^i/o-ews 8ov\os oiSeLs; p. 87, fr. 358; 
cf. p. 141, n. 7, above. 

=• Ibid., fr. 357. ^ JMd., 89, fr. 365; p. 86, frs. 356, 354. 

* Ibid., p. 86, fr. 355; p. 88, fr. 362; p. 89, 364. Cf. Espinas, Hist, des doctrines 
iconomiques, 56 i., on the Stoics' attitude toward labor and slavery: "Ni les 
Cyniques ni les Stoiciens ne meprisaient le travail"; "La seule servitude deshono- 
rante est celle des passions et du vice." 

5 Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 342 f. and notes), citing von Arnim, III, 77, fr. 314, 
6 v6ijlos irdvTUP iarl /3o(ri\ei;s, etc., thinks Chrysippus' principle of the law of reason 
as king of all is anti-individualistic. He cites also Cic. De fin. iii. 19 (64), where the 
individual seems to be made to exist for the sake of the whole. But cf. above, p. 140 f. 
and notes. 

* Cf. Diog. L. vii. 131, and above, p. 140, nn. 7 f. Wp. cit., p. 171. 

* Cf. above, on Cynics and Stoics, and infra; cf. even in Plato, Laws 679A-B. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 143 

character of the old Spartan constitution.^ The social theories 
were largely Stoic in tendency, and thus present a strange com- 
bination of individualistic and communistic ideas.^ 

Dichaearchus of Messana, a pupil of Aristotle, described an 
original paradise, when men lived in accord with nature. In that 
golden age, they did not depend upon animals for food, but sub- 
sisted on fruits. Neither did they have any possessions to arouse 
hate and strife, until the evil of private property developed, and 
caused the degeneration of human society.^ 

Ephorus,'' a disciple of Isocrates, represented the second tend- 
ency. He eulogized the life of the ''milk-fed" (7aXa/cr60a7ot), 
barbarian nomads of the north as true to nature and righteous.^ 
Their piety and simple life precluded the social ills that arise from 
individual ownership,^ for their communism even extended to the 
family, and all composed one brotherhood.' 

The third tendency is evident in the writings of Isocrates,* 
Ephorus,' Polybius,^" Plutarch," and was probably common to 

' The Socratics were the pioneers in this regard also. On the unhistorical char- 
acter of the alleged early communism in Sparta, cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 75 ff. and 
100 f.; on this triple tendency in the post-Aristotelian social thought, cf. ibid., 
pp. 99 ff., on "Der Sozialstaat der Legende und das sozialistische Naturrecht"; also 
Souchon, p. 172. 

^ Cf. above, p. 140. 

3 Cf. Porphyry De abstin. iv. i. 2; Mueller, F.H.G., II, 233. His Bios 'EXXdSoi 
was a history of the degeneration of Greek civilization from the primitive ideal. Cf . 
Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 109 and n. i, on his influence on Rousseau, who refers to him. 
Cf. ibid., n. 2, for a similar idea of a golden age in Theoc. xii. 15. 

^ On his social ideas, cf. Poehlmann, I, 113 ff. 

sStrabo vii, p. 463 (F.H.G., I, 256, fr. 76). 

^ Nic. Damasc. {F.H.G., III, fr. 123): Sia riiv tov /Sfou KoivSrriTa /cat diKaioffiivrjv, 
Cf. also ibid., I, 257, fr. 78, Ephorus. 

''Ibid.; also fr. 76: irp6i re dWi^Xoiu evvofiovvrai Koiva irdma ex*"'''^* ■''<* '''^ fiXXa 
Kal yvvaiKas Kal riKva koI ttjv SXrjv av/yivei.av. 

^ Panathen. 178: dXXd -n-apa acplffi fi^v airois ia-ovofxlav Karaffrijffai Kal drifioKparlav 
roLaiTTiv, o'iav rrep XPV '''oiis fj-iWovrat diravra rbv XP<5>'0»' opjovo-fjaeiv, also 153; for an 
idealized picture of early Athenian life, cf. Paneg. 79; Areop. 31; 32, 35, 44, 83; 
cited by Poehlmann, op. cit., 1, 136 f. 

9 Cf. Polybius vi. 45, and Poehlmann's note (I, 122). 

" Book vi. 10; 48; etc.; cf. Poehlmann, as above. 

" Cf. his Lycurgus, especially 8, 9, 10, 3, 25, 30, 31. 



144 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

many other thinkers whose works are no longer extant/ They 
ideahzed the ancient Spartan society, as a model of complete com- 
munism, which provided full equality and freedom for the citizens. 
It was free from the evils of luxury, excessive wealth, poverty, 
civic strife, commerce, and money-greed, a condition where all the 
citizens were wise, and where the Stoic ideal of independence 
(aurdp/ceta) was fully realized.^ 

It was but a step from this to the projection of these bizarre 
idealizations of the past and of primitive Hfe into the present and 
future. They took the form of ideal Utopias such as that of Zeno,^ 
or of romantic descriptions, purporting to portray ideal conditions 
as actually existing, such as found their model in Plato's Atlantis.* 
For a full discussion of this type of literature, the reader may consult 
Poehlmann's work.s We need give it only cursory notice here. 

Theopompus, a pupil of Socrates, described a "Meropian" 
land.^ His aim, however, was probably the entertainment of the 
reader, rather than social reform, as is evidenced by the fantastic 
nature of his stories. They picture not only ideal communistic 
conditions, but also a state of the wicked {irovqpoTroXLs), and 
crassly emphasize the alleged free-love of the Etruscans.^ 

The Cimmerian state of Hecataeus, an idealization of the king- 
dom of the Pharaohs, had a more serious social purpose.* It 
describes a state in which all conquered lands are equally divided 
among the citizens, and where landed property cannot be sold. 
The people are free from greed of gain, civic strife, and all the ills 
that follow it. The ideal is not the greatest increase of wealth, but 
the development of the citizens to the highest social ideal.' 

Euhemerus wrote a ''Sacred Chronicle" {lepa avay pa(f>r]y'' of 
an ideal society on an island near India, ruled by a priestly aris- 

' Cf. Poehlmann, I, 122 and n. 3. ^ Cf. above, p. 140. 

" Cf. above, notes p. 143, nn. 4-6. especially 6. * Cf. above, p. 62, n. 6. 
5 Op. ciL, II, 359 flf., though he has been too ready to see in them a direct analogy 
to modern socialism. 

* Book viii of his Philipp. Histories {Athen. xii. s^7d ff-)- 

7 Cf. Poehlmann, I, 362 fif. 

8 Mueller, F.H.G., II, 392, fr. 13; cf. 386 ff. 

' Diod. i. 6. 93; 4, a platonic ideal. " Ibid. v. 45. 3 ff. 



MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 145 

tocracy. Here, labor was held in high regard. The artisans were 
in the priestly class, the farmers were second, and the herdsmen 
were on an equahty with the soldiers.^ All land and other means 
of production were common, except the house and garden (ktitov).'^ 
The land was not worked collectively, but farmers and herdsmen 
ahke brought their products to a common storehouse for common 
consumption.^ Thus neither money nor commercial class was 
necessary. 

Jambulus, in his "Sun State,""* outdoes even Euhemerus in 
his communistic ideas. He describes a sort of paradise of sun- 
worshipers at the equator. Here the trees never fail of ripe fruit, 
and the citizens never lose their strength and beauty. The whole 
social and economic Hfe is under communistic regime. There is 
collective ownership of all the means of production, and each must 
take his turn at each kind of work.^ The communism extends 
also to the family.^ Thus Greek economic and social speculation, 
which always contained socialistic elements, ends in a communism 
for the whole citizenship, so thorough as to include both products 
and means of production, and to demand a leveling even of the 
natural inequaHties that result from the different kinds of work. 

' Ibid. 45. 3. 

^ Diod. V. 45. 5; 46. I shows that the artisans were included in the communism. 

3 Ibid. 45. 4: Toi>s Kdpirovs dva<l>4pov(np eU rb koiv6v, etc.; though prizes were given 
for excellence in farming. 

* Ibid. ii. 55-60. 

^ Ibid. 59.6: ivaWcL^ di avroiis roiis /jl^v dXXiyXots diaKoveiv, Toi>s 8i aXieieiv, rois d^ 
irepl tAj t^x''"* fivai, &\\ovs 8i irepl SiWa tQv xpTjo-^/xwi' d^xof^eiaOai, roiis 5' iK ir€pi6dov 
kvkXik^s XeiTovpyeiv, irXrjy tQv ijdri yeyrjpaKdruv. Cf. p. 34, n. i, above, on Ruskin's 
idea that aU should do some head and some hand work. Poehlmann (II, 391, n. 2) 
compares it to the socialism of Bebel. The implication that Plato's state is distin- 
guished from this, as a society of citizens who do not work (402 f.), is hardly fair 
The proper distinction is rather that Plato insists that each citizen do the particular 
kind of work for which he is best fitted. It is needless to ask which had the saner 
view, from the economic or any other standpoint. Jambulus' repudiation of the 
division of labor in the interest of equality is certainly one of the most radical meas- 
ures ever suggested in the history, of communism. 

« Diod. V. 58,1. 



CHAPTER VIII 

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPORTANCE AND 
INFLUENCE OF GREEK ECONOMICS 

Our conclusions as to the importance and influence of Greek 
economic thought have been fully presented in the previous dis- 
cussion. A brief summary of the results, however, may be of 
advantage now, at the close of our survey. As seen above, despite 
the fact that Greek thought in this field was incidental to moral 
and political speculation, and despite a certain philosophic prejudice 
and limited economic vision, the contribution is by no means merely 
negative. We have seen that it included a recognition by one or 
more Greek thinkers of such important principles as the following: 
that society finds its origin in mutual need, and in the natural 
development of clan and family, not in the artificial social contract ; 
that the state is a great business association, in which about the 
same economic laws apply as in private economy; that the final 
goal of economics is not property but human welfare; that the 
criteria of economic value are intrinsic utihty, economic demand, 
and cost of production; that wealth must possess the quaUty of 
storableness ; that true wealth consists only of commodities that 
minister to human welfare; that the three factors in production 
are land, labor and capital; that money originated in necessary 
exchange; that it serves as a medium of exchange, a standard of 
value, and a ticket of deferred payments; that it should possess 
intririsic value, which is more stable than that of other commodi- 
ties; that it should not be confused with wealth, but should be 
understood in its true function as representative wealth; that 
credit must play an exceedingly important part in business opera- 
tions as representative capital; that agriculture is the basal indus- 
try, on which all others must depend; that the division of labor is 
the fundamental principle at the foundation of all exchange; that 
it results in certain important economic advantages, and that its 
extensive application depends upon large commercial develop- 
ment; that reciprocity is the fundamental principle in exchange, 

146 



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 147 

as also in the social structure; that exchange performs a legitimate 
social function in creating time and place values; that industrial 
expansion is limited by a law of diminishing returns; ; that the pri- 
mary purpose of exchange should not be profit, but satisfaction 
of economic need ; that commerce merely for its own sake does not 
necessarily increase the national store, but may produce only 
economic inequalities; that extremes of wealth and poverty cause 
industrial inefficiency, social strife, and crime; that excessive 
individual wealth is not usually compatible with just acquisition 
or just expenditure; that it also necessarily implies corresponding 
extremes of poverty; that the commercial spirit in nations is the 
chief cause of international differences; that the goal of economics 
is consumption rather than production, and that foolish consump- 
tion results in great economic waste; that all economic problems 
are moral problems; that private property is not a natural right, 
but a gift of society, and therefore that society may properly con- 
trol its activities; that there is a certain unity in human nature, 
which is opposed to the doctrine of natural slavery; that the 
individual should have opportunity for personal development in 
accord with his capacities, aside from the mere struggle for physical 
existence; that true economic equality does not demand equal 
shares for all, but shares proportioned to capacities and services; 
and that gifts of charity merely for consumption are fruitful causes 
of poverty and indolence. 

Besides the recognition of such principles, we have seen that 
many practical suggestions for the amelioration of economic and 
social conditions, which are being seriously presented today, were 
first proposed by Greek thinkers. Measures for the divorce of 
government from big business, state control of natural monopolies, 
conservation of natural resources, state supervision of trade and 
commerce, including regulation of prices and rates, publicity in 
business, pure food laws, and the socialization of industry and its 
products were all first proposed by Greeks. On the other hand, 
we have seen that practically all the modern stock arguments 
against sociahsm were long ago presented by Aristotle, and that 
the ideal of the Greek socialist was not primarily materialistic and 
selfish, as the modern, but moral and social. 



148 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Such a list of positive economic principles and practical sug- 
gestions should surely give the Greeks some claim to recognition 
in the field of economic thought. But they should be judged 
primarily, not by their positive contribution to economic theory 
or by the practical nature of their suggestions for legislation, but 
rather by the extent to which they realized the existence of the 
great economic and social problems, which are still crying for a 
solution. From this standpoint, we have seen that Plato and 
Aristotle especially reveal remarkable economic insight. More- 
over, there still remains the outstanding fact that the Greeks v/ere 
the forerunners of the moral, humanitarian, and social emphasis 
in present-day economy. This alone should give to them a distinct 
place in the evolution of economic thought, and should make it 
impossible for Souchon to conclude: "Ces mepris [of G. B. Say] 
sont pour nous apparaitre plus justifies que les admirations de 
Roscher."^ 

The influence of Greek thought upon later economic theory, 
however, seems not to have been very direct or extensive, probably 
owing to the incidental nature of their speculation. To be sure, 
mediaeval economic thought presents, in many respects, an 
unbroken continuity with the Greek. In their emphasis on the 
moral, in their doctrines on usury, just price, importance of agri- 
culture, exchange for profit, and in their general conservative atti- 
tude toward money and commercial development, mediaeval 
thinkers are very similar to the Socratics.^ Doubtless much of 
this similarity may be traced to the direct influence of Aristotle, as 
is especially evident in the work of Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas 
Oresme.^ To a considerable extent, however, the economic ideas 
of the Middle Ages were a direct outgrowth of the economic and 
religious conditions under which the writers lived.'' In the following 

' Op. cit., p. 195; Roscher is, of course, extreme in his appreciation. 

^ Cf. Brants, Les theories icon, au XII I^ et XI V^ Steele; Espinas, Histoire des doc- 
trines economiques, pp. 72 ff.; Haney, op. cit., pp. 69 ff. 

3 In his De origine, natura, jure, et mutationibus monetarum (fourteenth century). 
On their dependence upon Aristotle, cf. Zmavc, Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Staatswiss., 
1902, pp. 54 and 77 f.; and Archivf. d. Gesch. der Phil., 1899, 407 ff. 

■• Cf. Souchon, pp. 199 f., who observes that the Greeic moral goal was perfection 
of the individual through the state, while that of the Middle Ages was individual 
salvation to another world. 



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 149 

centuries, some Greek influence may be traced in Adam Smith, in 
the physiocrats,'' in Utopian writers such as More, and in eighteenth- 
century thinkers Hke Rosseau. 

It is usually asserted that the economic thought of the past 
century has been practically unaffected by Greek ideas. But our 
previous discussion has clearly shown that Plato and Xenophon, 
at least, dominated the economic thinking of Ruskin. If further 
evidence is needed, it is necessary only to turn to the names of 
Greek thinkers in the index to the monumental new edition of his 
works, which we have frequently cited above. He frankly and 
enthusiastically presents himself as an apostle of a "Greek theory 
of economics."^ But despite some of his Utopian and extravagant 
ideas, he is being ever more recognized by authorities in economics 
as having been one of the chief factors in the development of 
poHtical economy to its present moral and humanitarian emphasis.^ 
His repudiation of the abstract "economic man," his insistence 
upon human, moral, and social ideals in economics, his attempt to 
broaden the definition of economic value and wealth by emphasizing 
true utihty, his constant stress upon proper consumption rather 
than upon production, his demand that all have opportunity up to 
their capacity, his opposition to the laissez-faire policy in economics 

^ Cf. Oncken, op. cit., p. 38. 

^ He calls Plato the "master of economy" {Fors Clav. [Vol. XXVIII, 717]); 
cf. also Vol. XXXVIII, 112 on his Platonic discipleship. He says {Arrows of the 
Chace, Vol. XXXIV, 547): "The economy I teach is Xenophon's"; cf. also Vol. 
XXXVII, 550, Letter to Professor Blackie, II: "My own political economy is literally 
only the expansion and explanation of Xenophon's." Cf. Vol. XXXI, Intro., pp. 
XV ff.; Vol. XVII, pp. xlix and 18; cf. his preface to his translation of the Economicus ; 
cf. also E. Barker, Pol. Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day 
("Home University Library"), pp. 191-96, who emphasizes this Greek influence. 
Cf. above, p. 23, n. 5; 64, n. 3. 

3 Barker, cited above, in n. 2, also emphasizes this fact. Cf. the edition of 
Ruskin above cited. Introduction to Vol. XVII, an excellent discussion of Ruskin's 
economic ideas and their influence, for a bibliography (p. cxii) and citations from 
many modem economists on the subject; e.g., the notable address in 1885, in recog- 
nition of his work, signed by a number of leading English economists; the striking 
citations from Ingram; from Stimson {Quarterly Journal of Economics, II [1888], 445), 
that the future political economy will make its bricks for building "from Ruskin's 
earth rather than from Ricardo's straw"; from the late regius professor of modem 
history at Oxford, "The political economy of today is the political economy of John 
Ruskin, and not that of John Bright or even of John Stewart Mill." 



I50 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

and politics, his emphasis upon right education, all have borne 
rich and abiding fruit in the last few decades, and these are all dis- 
tinctively Greek ideas, as we have seen above. Thus indirectly, 
through Ruskin, Greek economic thought has exerted a potent 
influence upon the evolution of nineteenth-century economics, and 
thus there is much truth in the words of Wagner, as quoted by 
Oncken,' not merely for German, but for all modern economy: 
"Es ist im Grunde uralter wahrhaft classischer Boden, auf den 
jetzt die deutsche okonomische und soziale Theorie und Praxis sich 
bewusst wieder stellen." Souchon's characterization of Greek 
economy as "morale etatisme"^ could well be appHed to much in 
the economic thought of today. 

' P. 46, n. 3 (Wagner, Die Akad. Nat.-oek. und der Socialistnus, 1895). 
'Op. cit., p. 201. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following bibliography includes: {a) histories of economic 
thought; almost all of these have only a cursory chapter on Greek 
theory, and several of them deal largely with economic conditions; 
(b) histories of socialism and social theory, to which the foregoing 
statement applies to a large extent ; (c) chapters in works on differ- 
ent phases of Greek economic history; (d) other works of a more 
general type, which deal more or less extensively with Greek eco- 
nomic or social ideas; (e) articles and dissertations; (/) editions of 
Greek authors that are of special interest for our subject. It is 
manifestly impossible to name many of these latter, and we shall 
content ourselves with the mention of a few that have proved 
especially helpful. The works are Hsted in alphabetical order, for 
greater convenience in reference, and those of chief interest are 
starred. 

Adam, James (The Republic of Plato, 1902). 

Adler, G. Geschichte des Socialismus und Kommunismus von Plato bis zur 

Gegenwart (1899), pp. 6-52. On Greek. 
Alesio. "Alcune reflessione intorno ai concetti del valore nell' antichita 

classica," Archivio Giuridico, 1889. 
Ashley, W. J. "Aristotle's Doctrine of Barter," Quarterly Journal of Econ- 
omy, 1895. An interpretation of Ar. Pol. i. 12 58^2 7 £f. 
Barker, E. Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle (1906), pp. 357-404.* 
Blanqui, M. Histoire de I'economie politique en Europe (1842; 4th ed., i860), 

I) 33~92- Somewhat indiscriminate in appreciation of Greek thinkers. 
Bonar. Philosophy and Political Economy (1893).* 
Brants, V. Xenophon Economiste, reprint from Revue Catholique de Louvain, 

1881.* 
Bussy, M. Histoire et Refutation du Socialisme depuis I'antiquite, jusqu' d 

nos jours (1859). Superficial and prejudiced. 
Cossa, L. Histoire des doctrines economiques (1899) (trans, from the Italian 

of 1876), pp. 144-50-* 
. "Di alcuni studii storici siille teorie economiche dei Greci," Saggi 

di Economia Politica, 1878, pp. 3-14. 
De Sam-Cognazzi. Analisi dell economia publica e privata degli antichi (1830). 
Du Mesnill-Marigny. Histoire de Veconomie politique des anciens peuples 

(1878, 3 vols.). Superficial. 

151 



152 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

De Villeneuve-Bargemont. Eistoire de Veconomie politique (Paris, 1841, 2d 

ed.), I. Chiefly on the facts. 
Dietzel. "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Socialismus und des Konimunismus," 

Zeitschrift fiir Liter atur und Geschichte der Staatswissenschaften, I (1893), 

373 ff.* 
Doring, A. Die Lehre des Socrates als soziales Reform-System (1895). 
DuBois, A. Precis de Vhistoire des doctrines iconomiques dans leurs rapports 

avec les faits et avec les institutions (1903), pp. 23-53. A good partial 

bibliography. * 
Diihring, E. Kritische Geschichte der N ationalokonomie und des Socialismus 

(3d ed., 1879), pp. 19-25. 
Dunning, W. A. Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval (New York, 1913). 

Economic material only incidental. 
Eisenhart, H. Geschichte der N ationalokonomie (2d ed., 1891). Mostly 

on economic history. 
Espinas. Eistoire des doctrines iconomiques (1891), chap, i.* 
. "L'art economique dans Platon," Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVI 

(1914), 105-29, 236-65.* 
Ferrara, J. " L'economica politica degli antichi," Journal de Statis. de Palerme, 

1836. 
Fontpertuis, F. de. "Filiation des idees economiques, dans I'antiquite," 

Journal des Scon., September, 187 1 ff.* 
Francotte, H. L' Industrie dans la Grece ancienne (Brussels, 1900). Sec- 
tions on Greek theories of labor and socialism.* 
Glaser. "De Aristotehs doctrina de divitiis" (dissertation, 1850), Jahrb. 

fiir Gesellschafts- und Staatswissenschaft, 1865. 
Gottling. De Notione servitutis apud Aristotelem (dissertation, Jena, 1821). 
^^Grote, G. Plato (4 vols.). 

V . Aristotle (2 vols.). 

Guiraud, P. La main-d'ceuvre industrielle dans V ancienne Grece (1900), 

pp. 36-50. On theory.* 
. La propriete fonciere en Grece jusqu'd la conquete Romaine (1893), 

PP- 573~6i2. On socialistic ideas.* 
. Etudes economiques sur I'antiquite (1905), chap. i. On the impor- 



tance of economic questions in Greece.* 
Hagen. Observationum oeconomico politicarum in Aeschinis dialogum qui 

Eryxias inscribitur (dissertation, 1822). 
Haney, L. W. Eistory of Economic Thought (1911), pp. 39-52.* 
Heidel, W. A. Pseudo-Platonica (dissertation, Chicago, 1896), pp. 59-61. 

On Eryxias. 
Herzog, C. "Communismus und Socialismus in Alterthum," Beilage zur 

allgemeine Zeitung, 1894, No. 166. Conservative on the influence of 

socialism in the ancient world. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 153 

Hildebrandj B. Xenophontis et Aristot. de oeconomia puhlica doctrinae illus- 
trantur (dissertation, Marburg, 1845). Part on Aristotle not published. 

Hoderman, M. " Quaestionum oeconomicarum specimen," (dissertation, 
Berlin, 1896), Berlin Siudien fiir class. Philol. und Arch., XVI, No. 4. 
On the so-called Economica. 
V Ingram, J. K. History of Political Economy (1907), pp. 7-26.* 

Jowett and Campbell. Republic of Plato (3 vols., 1894). 

Kaulla, R. Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der modernen Werttheorien (1906), 
pp. 3 f. On Aristotle. 

Kautsky, K. Die Geschichte des Socialismus in Einzeldarstellungen (1897), 
1,1. 

Kautz. Theorie und Geschichte der national Oekonomie (Wien, 2d ed., i860), 
pp. 102-43).* 

Knies, Karl. Die politische Ecohomie vom geschichtlichen Standpunkt (1883). 
Of but slight interest for ancient theory. 
v/ Loos, I. A. "Studies in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato," 
Bull, of the University of Iowa, 1899. 

Mabille. " Le commimisme et le feminisme a Athenes." 

Memoires de I'academie de Dijon, 4 serie, t. 7, pp. 317 ff. (Paris, 1900). 

Martiis, S. de. Cognetti (SociaUsmo antico, Turin, 1899).* 

Menger, Karl. Art. "Geld," Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaft (2d ed.), 
IV, 82 ff. 
'"^ Newman. The Politics of Aristotle (Oxford, 1877, 4 vols.).* 

Oncken, A. Geschichte der Nationalokonomie (1902), I, 27-49. 

Palgrave's Dictionary. Art. "Aristotle." This and the above-named article 
on "Geld" will serve as sufficient notice of the several Dictionaries of 
Political Economy, to which other references might be made. 

Platon, G. "Le socialisme en Grece," Devenir Social., January, 1897 ff. 

Poehlmann, R. Geschichte des antiken Socialismus und Kommunismus (Miin- 
chen, 1893-1901, 2 vols.; 2d ed., 1912, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und 
des Socialismus in der antiken Welt). A thorough treatment of Greek 
socialistic tendencies both in theory and in practice, though it exagger- 
ates the development of capitalism in Greece, and draws analogies too 
freely between ancient and modern socialism. Our citations are from 
the second edition.* 

. "Die Anfange des Sozialismus in Europa," Sybel's Hist. Zeitschrift, 

Bd. 79, H. 3, pp. 385-451. 
Rambaud, J. Histoire des Doctrines economiques (Paris, 1902). 
Regnier, M. V economic politique et rurale des Grecs. 
Robin, L. "Platon et la science sociale," Revue de metaphysique et de morale, 

March, 1913 (reprint by Armand Colin, Paris).* 
Roscher. "Ueber das Verhaltniss der national Oekonomik zum klassischen 

Alterthume," Ansichten der Volkswirtschaft, I (1878), 1-50.* 



154 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 

Roscher. De doctrinae oeconomico politicae apud Graecos primordiis (Leipzig, 

1866). 
Salvio, G. Salomo. // concetto delta schiavitu secundo Aristotile (Rome, 1881). 

. Communismo nella Grecia antiqua (Padua, 1883). 

Schneider. Die staatswirtschaftlichen Lehren des Aristotles (dissertation, Neu 

Puppin, 1873). 
Schrohl, 0. De Eryxias qui fertur Platonis (dissertation, igoi). Chiefly on 

the authorship of the Eryxias. 
Schulte, J. Quomodo Plato in legibus publica Atheniensium instituta respex- 

erit (dissertation, 1907). 
Sewall, H. "Theory of Value before Adam Smith," Publication of American 

Economic Association, II, Part 3. Four pages on Aristotle. 
Shorey. Paul ("Plato's Laws," Classical Philology, October, 1914. 
Simey, Miss E. "Economic Theory among the Greeks and Romans," Eco- 
nomic Review, October, 1900. 
Souchon, A. Les Theories economiques dans la Grhce antique (1898; a 2d ed. 

in 1906, but slightly changed).* 
Stein, Ludwig. Das erste Aufiauschen der sozialen Frage bei den Griechen 

(dissertation, Bern, 1896). 
. Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophic (Stuttgart, 1903, 2d ed.), 

pp. 150-82. 
. "Die staatswissenschaftliche Theorie der Griechen vor Arist. und 



V 



Platon," Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte Wissenschaft, 1853, pp. 115-82 

(Tubingen). 
Stewart. Notes to Ar., Nic. Ethics (2 vols.).* 
St. Hilaire, B. Preface to translation of the Politics of Arist. 
Thill, J. Die Eigenthumsfrage im klassischen Alterthum (Luxembourg, 1892). 
Thomissen. Histoire du socialisme depuis I'antiquite jusqu'd la constitution 

franqaise du 14 Jan., 1852. 
Trinchera, F. Storia critica dell' economia publia {epoca antica) (Naples, 1873) . 
Vanderkindere, L. "Le Socialisme dans la Grece antique," Revue de I'Uni- 

versite de Brussels, I, 4, pp. 241-46. 
Vogel, G. Die Oekonomik des Xenophon; eine Vorarbeit filr die Geschichte 

der griechischen Oekonomik (Erlangen, 1895). 
Walcker, K. Geschichte der N ationalokonomie und des Socialismus (Leipzig, 

1902). 
Wallon, Histoire de I'esclavage dans Vantiquite (Paris, 1879, 2d ed.). One 

chapter on theories of slavery. 
Wolf, H; Geschichte des antiken Sozialismus und Individualismus (1909). 

A merely popular treatment. 
Wilhelm, F. "Die Oeconomica der Neupythagoreer," Rhein. Mus., XVII, 

No. 2 (1915), 162 ff. 
Zmavc, J. "Die Werttheorie bei Arist. und Thos. Aquino," Archiv filr die 

Geschichte der Philosophic (Berlin, 1899), pp. 407 ff.* 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 5 

Zmavc, J. "Die Geldtheorie und ihre Stellung innerhalb der Wirtschaft und 
staatswissenschaftliche Anschauungen des Arist., Zeitschrift fur die ges. 
Staatswissenschaft, 1902, pp. 48-79-* 

As stated, a large number of the foregoing list deal chiefly with actual 
conditions, rather than with theory. Besides these, many other works on 
phases of Greek economic history are cited in the course of our discussion, 
the names of which, with page-references, may be found in the index. All other 
works that are incidentaUy cited are also listed there. For an excellent pres- 
entation of the poUtical economy of John Ruskin, and a selected bibliography 
on his work as a social and economic reformer, cf. the Library Edition of his 
works, from which we have often cited (George AUen, London, Introduction 
to Vol. XVII, 1905; bibliography, p. cxii). 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS 



Acquisition, 25, 27, 29, 59, 66, 78, 88, 89, 
90, 93, 105, 111-15,128, 138, 144, 147. 
See also Chrematistik; Exchange. 

Adam, 36, 96, 151. 

Adler, 55, 151. 

Aeschines, 62. 

Agriculture, 14 f., 18, 29 f., 31, 34, 38, 59, 
63, 66-68, 79, 89-91, 93, 96, 114, 116, 
128, 145 f., 148. 

Alcaeus, 14. 

Alcidamas, 17. 

Alesio, 151. 

Antisthenes, 65, 126, 131 f., 134. 

Apollodonis, 91. 

Aquinas, 148. 

Ardaillon, 75. 

Aristippus, 129. 

Aristo, 141. 

Aristophanes, 57, 66, 93, 119, 138. 

Aristotle, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21 f., 28, 29, 30, 
32, 33, 37, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 5i, 52, 
53, 54, 56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 79, 81- 
124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 
^33, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143, 147, 148. 

Ashley, 113 f., 151. 

Athenaeus, 133, 140. 

Aulus Gellius, 52. 

Barker, 9, 15, 16, 17, 84, 85, 90, 97, 98, 
100, loi, 104, 105, 108, no, 124, 130, 
149, 151. 

Barter, 35, loi, 106, 108, 113. 

Bawerk, E. Boehm von, 106. 

Bebel, 145. 

Beloch, 9, 20, 45. 

Bergk, 14. 

Blanqui, 29, 48, 68, 82, 104, 151. 

Boeckh, 9, 41, 47, 106, 134. 

Bonar, 26, 28, 32, 36, 37, 48, 84, 90, 118, 
134, 151- 

Bright, 149. 

Bryson, 126. 

Biicher, 20. 

Biichsenschutz, 65, 93. 

Bussy, 48, 151. 



Callicles, 16. 

Callicratidas, 126, 

Capital, 18, 30, 35, 47, 65, 67, 68 f ., 91-93, 

104, 117, 124, 137, 146. See also the 

Greek index for term. 

Capitalism, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 47, 
62, 96, 106, 112. 

Carlyle, 25, 44, 99, loi. 
Caste system in Plato's Republic, 37, 
48 f. 

Charetides, 91. 

Chrematistik, 105, no, in, 112, 113, 

115, 123, 124. See also Acquisition; 

Exchange. 

Christ, W., 63, 81. 
Chrysippus, 141 f. 
Cicero, 125, 126, 130, 139, 142. 
Civic strife, 13, 25, 26, 54, 55, 62, 74, 78, 
79, 87, 118, 144, 147. 

Cleanthes, 141. 
Clement Alex., 15, 140. 
Cognazzi, De, 151. 
Collectivism, 31, 61, 123, 124. 
Columella, 91. 
Commerce. See Exchange. 
Communism, See Socialism. 
Communism of family, 18, 54, 55, 56, 117, 
120, 133, 140, 142, 143, 145. 

Competition, 14. 

Conservation, 30, 147. 

Consumption, 27, 46, 68, 91, 92, 105, 113, 

114, 137, 145, 147, 149- 
Cope, 83, 93. 
Cornford, 14, 18, 41, 53. 
Cossa, 67, 82, 134, 151. 
Crantor, 125. 
Crates, 133, 138, 139. 
Credit, 39, 105, 106, 146. See the Greek 

index for term. 
Croiset, 17, 63, 81. 
Cynics, 16, 97, 103, 125, 126, 127, 129, 

130, 131-33, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 

141. 
Cyrenaics, 129, 130. • 



157 



iS8 



GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 



Decharme, i8. 
Democritus, 15, 17, 23. 
Demosthenes, 13, 45, 62, 66, 68, 69, 77 f., 
105, 106, 114. 

Dichaearchus, 143. 

Dials, IS, 17. 

Dietzel, 32, 57, 152. 

Diminishing returns, 67, 146. 

Dio Chrysostom, 13, 126, 130, 131, 132. 

Diodorus, 145. 

Diogenes, 131, 132 f., 138. 

Diogenes Laertius, 17, 52, 100, 126, 127, 

130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141, 
142. 

Distribution, 12, 46 f., 51, 57, 74, 84, 102, 
1 15-17, 118, 140. See also the Greek 
index for term. 

Distributive justice, 102, 107. 

Dobbs, 16, 25. 

Doering, 69, 152. 

Droysen, 45. 

Drumann, 29, 57. 

DuBois, 28, 35, 55, 82, 92, 104, 109, 114, 
152. 

Diihring, 71, 82, loi, 152. 

Dummler, 17. 

Dunning, 130, 152. 

Economica, 9, 14, 63, 69, 81, 94, 125, 

126 f., 127-29, 131, 133. 
Economic demand, 34, 64, 70, 72, 82, 83, 

84, 86, 104, 108, 109, no, 135, 146. 

See also the Greek index. 
Economy: and asceticism, 12, 25, 60, 65, 

131, 136, 137, 139; and ethics, 10, 18, 
21, 29,63,81,90, 146, 148, 149; domes- 
tic and public, 9, 63, 81 f.. Ill, 112, 113, 
126, 146; influence of Greek, 8, 146-50; 
mediaeval, 39, 148; modem, 8, 11 f., 
27, 44, 115; Ricardian, 8, 10, 11, 50. 

Education, 50, 54, 95, 118, 121, 122, 149. 

Eisenhart, 32, 152. 

Ely, II. 

Ephorus, 143. 

Epictetus, 133. 

Epicurus, Epicurean, 52, 126, 129, 130. 

Equality, 55 f., 60 f., 62, 79 f., 83, 109, 

116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 145, 147. 
Eryxias, 17, 103, 132, 133-37. 
Esmein, 52. 
Espinas, 9, 28, 29, 38, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 

142, 148, 152. 



Eudemian ethics, 81, 83, 87, 98, 107, 112, 
120, 125, 128. 

Eudemus, 127. 

Euhemerus, 144 f. 

Euripides, 17 £., 96, 136. 

Exchange: Greek attitude toward, 14,32, 
33, 41-45, 56, 59, 66, 70, 73 £., 77, 79, 
82, 91, 92, 94, 105, 109, no, 111-15, 
116, 123, 128, 140, 143, 145, 147, 148; 
regulations for, 43, 1 23 ; theory of, 35 f ., 
38, 40, 41, 83, 84, 89, 102, 104, 106-110, 
lis, 119, 128, 146, 147. See also Chre- 
matistik; Acquisition; and the Greek 
index for terms. 

Ferrara, 152. 

Fontpertuis, 64, 67, 68, 96, 152. 
Francotte, 20, 29, 32, 55, 57, 62, 124, 134, 
152. 

Gernet, 45. 
Gilliard, 14. 
Glaser, 152. 
Gottling, 152. 
Gold, 15, 40, 54, 133, 137, 
Gomperz, 17, 49, 131, 133, 137. 
Grain supply, 45. 
Grote, 13, 49, 152. 
Grundy, 45. 

Guiraud, 29, 37, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 69, 
123, 152. 

Hagen, 134, 152. 

Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, 
108. 

Haney, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 35, 48, 71, 72, 
82, 84, 89, 105, no, 113, 119, 148, 152. 

Harpocration, 68. 

Hasbach, 130. 

Hecataeus, 144. 

Heidel, 125, 133, 134, 137, 152. 

Hense, 137. 

Heraclitus, 15. 

Hermann, 43. 

Herodotus, 19, 45, 63, 66. 

Herzog, 152. 

Hesiod, 14, 17, 30, 33. 

Hesychius, 93. 

Hierocles, 126. 

Hildebrand, 153. 

Hippias, 16, 17. 



INDEXES 



159 



Hippodamas of Miletus, 15, 52; the 

Pythagorean, 52. 
Hippolytus, 52. 
Hobbes, 16. 

Hoderman, 126, 127, 134, 153. 
Homer, 14, 52. 
Horace, 129. 

Individualism, 16, 56, 57, 75, 79, 119, 122, 

130, 140 f., 142, 143. 
Industry, 14, 29, 32, 35, 36, 47, 66, 69 f., 

79, 90, 92, 95, III, 116. See also 

Labor; Production. 
Ingram, 7, 10, 72, 89, 104, 149, 153. 

Interest, 31, 39 f., 59 U 78, 92, 93, io5, 
106, 148. See also Capital; Capital- 
ism; and the Greek index for terms. 

Isocrates, 13, 66, 68, 77-80, 88, 106, 143. 

Jackson, 108. 
Jamblichus, 15, 52, 127. 
Jambulus, 145. 
Jesus, 26, 49, 87, 136. 
Jowett, 60, 95, 114, 153. 
Just price, 23, 107, 108, 140. 

KauUa, 65, 153. 

Kautsky, 153. 

Kautz, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 31, 48, 65, 67, 70, 

72, 89, 107, 134, 153. 
Knies, 153. 
Koutorga, 106. 

Labor: attitude toward, 14, 17, 20, 29, 

31-34, 37, 59, 69 f., 77, 79, 89, 91, 93" 
96, 116, 128, 132, 142; division of, 19, 

29, 33, 34-47, 38, 41., 70 f-, 73, 79, 96, 
145, 146; in production, 18, 31, 47, 67, 
83, 84, 96, 108, no, 146. See also Pro- 
duction; Laborer; and the Greek in- 
dex. 

Laborer, attitude toward, 47-5°, 74, loi, 
116, 117, 145. 

Lamb, 18. 

Land tenure: in Aristotle's state, 122 f.; 
in Greece, 51; in Plato's Laws, 58 f., 
62, 122; in other writers, 133, i44- 

Law, overestimate of, 13, 51, 56, 61, 75. 

Laws, historical basis of Plato's, 43 f. 

Leisure, 29,87,94,95, loi, 116. See also 
the Greek index. 

Lenormant, 72. 

Liberality, 87, 121. 



Loos, 153. 

Lychophron, 16, 17, 119. 
Lycurgus, 69, 140, 143. 
Lysias, 45, 68. 

Mabille, 153. 

Macaulay, 103. 

Magna Moralia, 81, 84, 87, 88, 125. 

Malthus, 45 f. 

Malon, 55. 

Martiis, De, 52, 57, 153. 

Marx, 84, 124. 

Menger, 108 £., 153. 

Mercantilism, 41, 72, 86, 103, 104. 

Mesnil-Marigny, Du, 151. 

Metrodorus, 127. 

Meyer, 9, 20, 21, 106. 

Mill, 8, 27, so, 68, 85, 86, 92, 117, 149. 

Mines, mining, 13, 66, 67, 74, 75, 128. 

Money: and wealth, 72, 86, 103, io4,fi3S, 
137, 146; attitude toward, 73, 106, 105, 
140, 141, 145, 148; functions, 15, 38 f., 
41, 84, loi f., 103, 106, 108, 113, 115, 
146; history of, 35, 38, loi f., 112, 146; 
intrinsic value of, 40, 72, 102, 103, 104, 
135, 137, 146; materials, 40, 60, 72, 
105, 129; stability, 72, 104, 146. See 
also Inteiest; Gold; Silver; Mercantil- 
ism; and the Greek index. 

Monopoly, no, 129, 147. 

More, 149. 

Mueller, 143. 

Mullach, 15, 125, 131, 132, 133. 

Nationalism, 62, 124. 

Nauck, 17 f. 

Nearing, 40. 

Nettleship, 37. 

Newman, 17, 86, 89, 91, 97, loi, 103, 112, 

114, 132, 153- 
New Pythagoreans, 127. 
Nic. Damasc, 143. 

Oncken, 37, 48, 55, 129, 134, 140, 149. 

150, 153- 
Oresme, 148. 

Paley-Sandys, 106. 

Palgrave's Dictionary, 104, 153. 

Pericles, 12. 

Periktione, 126. 

Peters, 108. 



i6o 



GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT 



Phaleas, i6, 53, 118, 120, 142. 
Philodemus, 126, 127, 130. 
Phintys, 126, 
Photius, 52. 

Physiocratic tendencies, 28 f., 30, 41, 89, 
no, 140, 149. See also Exchange; 
Production. 
Pindar, 83. 

Plato, 9, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22-62, 
63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 
81, 82, 84, 8s, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 
9S» 96, 97. 99) 100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 
108, III, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 
122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 
134, 13s, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 
144, 14s, 148, 149- 

Platon, G., 153. 

Plutarch, 125, 126, 127, 140, 143 f. 

Poehlmann, 7, 20, 21, 29, 32, 2,3, 36, 47, 
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, S3, 54, 55, S6, 57, 58, 
01, 62, 74, 75, 76, loi, 105, 106, 112, 
117, 119, 120, 124, 140, 141, 142, 143, 
144, 145, 153- 

Pohlenz, 53, 56, 57. 

Pollux, 93. 

Polybius, 143 f. 

Population, 45 f., 59, 74, 115, 120. 

Porphyry, 52, 126, 143. 

Poverty, 14, 15, 27, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 59, 
0°, 74, 75, 78, 79, 87, 109, IIS, 120, 130, 
132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 144, 147- 

Prices, regulation of, 43, 45, 47, 108, no, 
147. 

Private property. See Socialism. 

Prodicus, 17. 

Production, 27-37, 66-69, 74, 83, 88-93, 
96, 146, 149. See also Industry; Physi- 
ocratic tendencies; and the Greek in- 
dex. 

Profits, 46, 74, 109, no, 116. 
Protagoras, 17. 
Publicity, 4s, 60, 61, 147. 
Pythagoras, 15, 52. 

Quesnay, 89. 

Rambaud, 153. 

Rassow, 108. 

Reciprocity, 34, 41, 96, 146. 

Regnier, 153. 

Ricardo. See Ricardian economy. 

Ritchie, 83. 

Robin, 22, 27, 28, 37, 43, 52, 153. 



Rodbertus, 20. 

Roscher, 9, 18, 32, 72, 148, 153. 

Rousseau, 131, 143, 149. 

Ruskin, 9, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 
34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 55, 
61, 63, 64, 67, 87, 92, 93, 95, 99, 100, 
loi, 105, 109, no, in, 13s, 137, 138, 
145,149, 150, 154- 

Salvio, 154. 
Sappho, 14. 
Say, 148. 
Schaeffle, 112. 
Schneider, 154. 
Schoenberg, n. 
Schrohl, 134, 136, 154. 
Schulte, 43 f., 154. , 

Seligraan, n. 
Seneca, 130, 139, 141. 
Sewall, 64, 83, 154. 

Shorey, 18, 28, 36, 55, 56, 58, 62, 99, 154. 
Silver, 40, 54, 65, 72, 133, 137. 
Simey, 72, 134, 154. 

Slavery, 16, 18, 21, 32, 37 f., 62, 67, 70, 
86, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97-101, 123, 126, 128, 
129, 132, 133, 142, 147- 
Smith, Adam, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 64, 

71, 75, 82, 86, 91, 92, 93, 115, 149. 
Social contract, 15, 16, 22, 119, 130, 146. 
Social origins, 22, 34, 119 f., 146. 
Sociahsm and communism, 12 f., 45, 51, 
53, 79, 147, 151; in Aristotle, 96, 105, 
118-24; in Greece, 12 f., 51, 143; in 
Laws, 58-62; in Republic, 48, 49, 50, 
54-58; in Xenophon, 75 f.; in other 
writers, 15, 52-54, 79 f., 130, 140 f., 
142-45- 
Socrates, 22, 26, 31, 57, 63, 67, 69, 73, 74, 

129, 134, 136, 144. 
Solon, 13, 14. 
Sophists, 16, 17, 18, 22, 36, 73, 97, III, 

119, 130, 131, 142. 
Souchon, 7, 10, 17, 31, 36, 37, 41, 48, 49, 
52, 53, 55, 57, 61, 62, 72, 82, 88, 89, 93, 
104, 106, 123, 124, 141, 142, 143, 148, 
150, 154- 
Spencer, 35. 
Speusippus, 125. 
Stein, 55, 140, 154. 
Steinhart-Mueller, 134. 

Stewart, 83, 84, 92, 94, 95, 102, 107, 108, 
116, 119, 154. 



INDEXES 



i6i 



St. Hilaire, 8i, 82, 154. 

Stimson, 149. 

Stobaeus, 15, 52, 126, 127, 130, 137, 139, 

141. 
Stoics, 16, 19, 125, 126, 127, 130, 134, 13s, 

136, 139-42, 143, 144- 
St. Paul, 49, 120, 132. 
Strabo, 132, 143. 
Susemihl, 81, 89, 96, 127, 128. 
Sussitia, 60, 117, 122 f. 

Tariff, 41, 73, no, 129. 

Teles, 132, 133, 137-39- 

Theocritus, 143. 

Theognis, 14. 

Theophrastus, 91, 125, 126, 127. 

Theopompus, 144. 

Thill, 154. 

Thomissen, 154. 

Thoreau, 12, 25, 26. 

Thrasymachus, 16. 

Thucydides, 10, 12, 18, 45, 66, 68, 69. 

Timaeus, 52. 

Trinchera, 154. 

Usener, 130. 

Utility, 22 f., 64, 65, 83, 88, 134, 135, 138, 
146, 149. 

Value, 22 f., 64 f., 82-84, 85, 96, 115, 
134 f., 149. See also the Greek, index. 
Vanderkindere, 154. 
Varro, 91. 
Vnieneuve-Bargemont, De, 152. 



Vogel, 154. 

von Arnim, 133, 139, 140, 141, 142. 

Wages, 17, 46, 47, 74, 116. 
Wagner (Pastor), 136. 
Wagner, 150. 
Walcker, 154. 
Walker, 86. 
Wallon, 97, 98, 154. 

War, 25, 27, 36, 37, 66, 67, 70, 73, 79, 
128, 147. 

Wealth: attitude toward, 15, 17, 18, 24- 
27, 48, 50, 55, 56, 60, 65 f., 77, 78, 79, 
81, 86-88, 109, 125 f., 127, 129, 130, 

131 f-, 133-37, 138 f., 139 f-, 141, 144, 
146, 147; defined, 24, 27, 65, 85 f., 91, 
112, 133, 146, 149. See also the Greek 
index. 

Wilhelm, 7, 127, 154. 

Wolf, 57, 141, 154. 

Xenocrates, 125, 126. 

Xenophon, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 30, 
38, 42, 46, 63-76, 81, 84, 89, 91, 96, 97, 
III, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 
13s, 136, 138, 149- 

Zell, 105. 

Zeller, 15, 17, 32, 34, 48, 49, 52, 81, 97, 

125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 139. 
Zeno, 139 f., 141, 142, 144. 
Zimmern, 9, 14, 29, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44 f-, 

45, 66. 
Zmavc, 9, 81, 82, 84, 90, 104, 115, 124, 

148, 154. 



INDEX OF GREEK TERMS 



iL-yopaariK-fi, 40. 

ddid^opa, 125, 139. 

airlas, 28. 

dWayv, 38, 39, 40, 41, 89, 106, 140. 

a^la, 23, 64, 84, 86. 

dweipos, 25, 85, 112. 

diroXavffTiK'/i^ 40, 68. 

dpyvpiov, 24, 72. 

dffxoXfa, 66. 

avrctpjceta (avrdpKTji) ^ 34, 112, 138, 144. 

a^oTwXiK^, 40. 

o^TOD/376s, 18, 40, 89, 96. 

a'ur6<pvTov, 89, 113. 

d(f>opfi-^, 68, 79, 92, 96, 106, III, 131. 

^dvavffos (^avavffiKal, PavavffLa), 70, 93, 

95, 113, 140. 
drifuovpyds, 23, 36, 48, 93. 
diavop.^, 115, 116. 
diopOuTiKdVj 102. 
iyyvTjTi^s, 103. 

elffaydiyifia (ivturaywyLfiwv) , 35, no, 128. 
tfivopos {ip.iropt.K-f), ifiTTopla),^^, 41, 42, 73, 

III, 113- 
Ivepyd, 69. (dpyd, 68.) 
(^ayd)yip.a (i^ayonivwv) , no, 128. 
tpavos, 68. 

ipyaala, 66, 89, 90, 1 13. 
evjieTaxfipiffTOVj I02. 
dr]aavpi<Tp.6s, 85, 86. 
tV6T7js, 56. 
KdTTTjXos (KaTT'jjXtKi^, KOTnjXefa), 35, 40, 41, 

42, 78, 89, III, 112, 113, 141. 
KdpTrifia, 68. 

KttTct TTjf dvaXoY/av fcov, 83. 
»c€(/)dXaios, 30, 69. 
Kl^drfKos (dKl^dr]\os), 42, 43. 
KTiJ/uaro, 24, 64, 82, 85, 88, 138. 
KTTJcns, 25, 65, 92, 125, 128. 



KTrjTLK-fi, 28, 88, III, 112, 113. 

p.tTa^\r)Ti.K-fi, 40, 82, III, 

fjuffOapvLa, 89, 113. 

vavK\7jpla, 113. 

v6p.LfffM, 38, 39, 84, 102, 103, 128, 133, 

140. 
v6fju)i, 16, 103, 119, 127, 142. 
^i/i^oXov rijs dXXav^j, 102. 
d^oKoffrariK'^^ 105. 
otAceiardTTj, 91, 113. 
oiKovo/JiiKi^ {oiKovoula, oiKov6fws), 9, 107, 

111, 112, 114, 126, 128, 140. 
ipyavov^ 86, 88, 91, 97. 
TrapdffTaffts^ 1 13. 

vLaris, 68, 77, 106. 

tXoOtos (TrXoiJo-tov), 24, 85, 112, 125, 127, 

132, 13s. 
irolriffis (xoirfTiK-^), 28, 69, 88, 92, 97. 
vpa^is {trpaKTiK-fj), 69, 88, 92, 97. 
ordaii {5i.d<TTa<ni), 13, 25, 62, 87. 
avp.p\7)Tdj 102. 
avvairlovi, 28. 
©•XoXtJ, 87, 

T^X*''?, 66, 93, 113, 145. 
Tlfirj, 84. 
TO tffov dvTiireirov66i (ri drrtiren-ot'^is kot' 

dvaXoyiav), 96, 107, I2i. 
t6kos {T0Ki(jrn6t), 39, 93, 105, 113. 
(popTTiyLa, 113. 
</)i:i(ris, 16, 36, 89, 96, 98, 106, 113, 127, 

128, 131, 132, 142. 
XP«'a, 34, 82, 84, 102, 108. 
Xprip-ara, 15, 24, 25, 28, 38, 64, 65, 84, 

112, 134, 13s, 137, 138. 
Xpi)p.a.ri(TTi.K-{t (xpwaTio-TiJj), 9,26,42,73, 

85, 88, 106, 107, no. III, 112, 113, 
140, 141. 
Xpu<r6s (xpi^<r/o»'), 24, 72, 83. 



162 



ltJr33 



